Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

The Minister was asked—

Designated Ports

1. Mr. Roger Casale: What representations he has received concerning designated ports status. [39107]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): Interested parties have until 15 May to comment on the Government's proposals to establish a system of designated ports for landings of fish made by vessels over 20 m. We shall then consider the representations received before any final decisions are taken.

Mr. Casale: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that in this, as in many other areas of European regulation, it is not so much the Commission's policy as the enforcement of policy by member states that is the real issue at stake? The present Government recognise that distinction. The previous Tory Government's failure to do so left them and the British fishing industry up the creek without a paddle.

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right to say that, although we are pressing for stronger Europewide enforcement, we have a responsibility in our country to ensure that our fleets abide by the regulations. We have had difficulties on the black fish issue. The proposals on designated ports demonstrate that the Government intend to take the issue seriously.

Mrs. Joan Humble: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. In Fleetwood in my constituency, the idea of designated ports has been widely welcomed, but there is concern that the restrictions will apply to the British fleet, but not to European vessels fishing in the area. Can the Minister give cause for hope by reassuring me that the scheme may be extended to include foreign vessels?

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes a very serious point. The creation of a system of designated ports is a national measure, taken by us as an individual member state, to deal with a national issue of

enforcement. United Kingdom vessels are free to land abroad, as they always have been. However, we are pressing for increased and more effective Europewide fisheries enforcement, and we know that our proposals for designated ports are attracting the interest of other European member states. That measure may well be taken forward across the Community.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the Minister acknowledge the general unease in the fishing industry? Every problem in the fishing industry is answered with increasing bureaucracy, and there is a failure to tackle the industry's fundamental underlying problems, associated with the common fisheries policy and the drive to make British fishing waters part of a common resource, to be shared with all other nations on the basis of equal access.

Mr. Morley: We have debated common access previously, and the hon. Gentleman knows that, in our view, the principle of relative stability takes precedence over the issue of common access. On bureaucracy, unfortunately, in an industry where regulation is inescapable, and where there have been enforcement problems—problems within our own UK fleet—we must have regulations that are enforced fairly and properly.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will my hon. Friend accept our assurances that the creation of a system of designated ports is an effective way in which to tackle the pressing problem of black fish? However, will he remember that it would be iniquitous if the hours of landing at those designated ports—of which Grimsby will be, I hope, the foremost and the prestige designated port—were restricted by the hours of work of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials? Fishermen need to be able to land whenever they have to, and if they are buffeted by weather and bound by very difficult conditions, they need the opportunity to land 24 hours a day.

Mr. Morley: I can confirm that Grimsby is one of the ports that has been designated. The hours of landing are designed to reflect traditional landing patterns in those ports and, I acknowledge, to ensure that sea fish inspectors are available when boats unload. However, consultation is continuing, and my hon. Friend's arguments can certainly be considered.

Food Standards Agency

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If he will make a statement on the procedures for the (a) accountability to Parliament of the Food Standards Agency and (b) authorisation of its funding. [39108]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The Food Standards Agency will be accountable to the House through Health Ministers, and will be required to lay its annual report and accounts before Parliament. Its chief executive will be the accounting officer, who may be called before the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: May I preface my question by thanking the Minister for ringing me this morning to apologise for answering one of my written questions


about the agency late? Does he agree that the paramount duty of the Food Standards Agency will be to reassure the British public that British food is among the safest in the world, if not the safest in the world? is it not, therefore, important to get the structure right from its inception? As I understand it, the agency's remit will include both enforcement and policy making with respect to the safety of British food. That could become oppressive in the absence of proper democratic accountability.
Will the Minister consider setting up a separate part of the organisation to deal with enforcement, possibly along the lines of an enlarged Meat Hygiene Service? There could then be a separate policy-making section as well. As the agency will primarily be responsible for food safety, does the Minister agree that its funding should come mainly from the public purse?

Mr. Rooker: On the latter point, we said in the White Paper that we would issue a separate consultation document on funding. I intend to issue the consultation paper at about the same time as we publish a draft Bill, which I hope will be well before the summer recess.
The hon. Gentleman's first point was covered in many of the consultation responses—well over 1,100 of them—that we have received. His points are valid; we shall debate them in the House, in the Select Committee and in the Standing Committee. Ultimately, the House must be in control. The legislation, approved by the House, will set out the guiding principles to which the agency will work; it will not be able to create its own agenda.

Dr. Brian Iddon: My hon. Friend has suggested when the draft Bill may be published. Will he assure the House that there will be adequate time for the Select Committee and others fully to discuss the proposals?
As there have been some criticisms in respect of the funding arrangements, can the Minister assure us that there will also be adequate time for people to express their feelings about the part of the Bill dealing with funding?

Mr. Rooker: The answer to both questions is yes. There will be adequate time to debate this important policy initiative. We must get it right from day one. Given the problems that this country has experienced in the past with food safety policy and enforcement, we cannot afford to get it wrong this time: too many people are watching what we are doing.

Mr. Paul Tyler: We welcome the Minister's assurances, but does he recognise that there is a major transitional problem? There is continuing controversy over issues such as antibiotics in food and beef on the bone, and Ministers and their advisers still do not enjoy the public confidence that they should, largely as a result of their predecessors' behaviour. Would it not be possible to set up the agency now on a non-statutory, advisory basis? That might at least give it the credibility of some independence from Ministers.

Mr. Rooker: That is not the right way to go. I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman says about a lack of confidence. However, in the past 12 months, we have made decisions and issued announcements to the effect that, from now on, brand names will be used in the results

of surveys on pesticides residues and veterinary medicines residues. We are also publishing brand names for the results of the programme of chemical surveillance of food contaminants; and we are publishing every month the hygiene assessment scores of every red and white meat abattoir in the country. In short, we are becoming much more open and transparent about food policy than Governments have ever been. We hope that that will help to restore confidence.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. David Chaytor: What assessment he has made of the impact on consumers of the current CAP reforms. [39109]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): We estimate that the lower support prices proposed by the European Commission would mean that UK consumers would save around £1 billion a year, equivalent to a 2 per cent. reduction in retail food bills.

Mr. Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend. I also congratulate the Government on their work to reform the CAP. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the net effect of the CAP over many years has been to cut jobs in rural areas, to reduce the diversification of wildlife and to encourage the dangerous intensification of agriculture? Can he assure the House that the Government will continue to press for reforms that adopt an integrated approach to rural areas, stressing rural development, the rural economy and environmental protection? What plans does he have, in particular, to encourage more farmers to switch to organic farming?

Dr. Cunningham: On the latter point, I have already announced an interim package of measures to bring more assistance to organic farming, and to fund more research. That has been welcomed by the Soil Association and others. I had the pleasure to be the first Agriculture Minister in this country ever to address the Soil Association's annual conference, which was one of the many omissions of the previous Administration over 18 years.
As for wider reform of the CAP, I agree with my hon. Friend that we must seek to free our farmers from some of the worst restrictions imposed on them by the CAP, to enable them to be more competitive and to take advantage of global markets. We must also transfer resources away from such things as headage payments, and towards environmental support and investment in rural economies.

Mr. James Paice: I congratulate the Minister on 12 years of occupancy—[Laughter.] I mean 12 months. I have obviously been listening too much to the Foreign Secretary. Let me congratulate the Minister on his 12 months in office.
Will the Minister confirm that in those 12 months, the prices of nearly every agricultural product have fallen considerably—beef by 10 per cent., sheep by 34 per cent., milk by about 20 per cent. and wheat by 21 per cent.? Next week's threatened further 2.5 per cent. revaluation of the green pound will cost the industry another £70 million or £80 million. How much of that has been


of real benefit to the consumer? Will the Minister admit that his first 12 months of stewardship of agriculture have led to the biggest agricultural crisis for decades?

Dr. Cunningham: I am overwhelmed by the hon. Gentleman's prognosis, but underwhelmed by his inaccuracy about what has happened. As the Select Committee on Agriculture has confirmed to the House, the biggest crisis to hit agriculture this century was the BSE crisis bequeathed to the Government and the country by the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. David Drew: Does my right hon. Friend agree that consumers will, more than anything, welcome greater localised supply, particularly of organic products? Will he join me in condemning the United States Department of Agriculture's redefinition of organic food? Will he ensure that the European Union, as part of its reforms, sets its own standards in this area?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes. We shall certainly safeguard the very high standards required of organic produce in this country. We shall do much more than the previous Administration to promote the growth of organic farming. We inherited from that Administration a contribution of only 0.3 per cent. of organic farming in this country, the worst record of any Government in the European Union. We shall do much better than that.

British Beef

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: What measures he is pursuing to promote the sale of British beef. [39110]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The Government have continued to support various initiatives to help restore confidence in beef and, therefore, promote consumption. As a result, the latest figures show that household consumption is back to 85 per cent. of the 1995 level.

Mr. Jenkin: May I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that I was asking about British beef, not beef consumption in general? I welcome efforts to promote British beef, but butchers in my constituency are complaining that in order to label beef British, they must pay a fee to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Moreover, and unfairly, a family butcher has to pay the same fee as a supermarket does. When will the Ministry bring fairness and reasonableness to that situation?

Mr. Rooker: If the hon. Gentleman is opposed to the beef labelling scheme, he should stand up and say so. That scheme is a major European initiative, and we want people to be accredited. Some 8,000 retailers have been accredited by 80 separate independent organisations. If the scheme is to work and the consumer is to believe that the information on the label is accurate—it includes the age of the animal, sometimes its tag number, the sex, method of slaughter and where the animal was reared and slaughtered—there must be independent accreditation. That independent accreditation will come not from my Ministry, but from the independent accreditation authorities.

Mr. Dennis Turner: Is the Minister aware that there is one sure way in which to

assist British beef producers, and that is by taking advantage of the succulent British beef steak that is being served in our Terrace Cafeteria today? I assure him that it is beautiful. If, however, he wishes to avail himself of some wonderful fresh fish, lightly battered, which was brought in by British trawlers, he should visit the Dining Room tonight where he may also have some golden chips and lovely mushy peas.

Mr. Rooker: Like the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), my hon. Friend refers to a particular aspect of British beef. He understands the position in terms of the Government's promoting a product in line with the guidelines set out by the European Union. We are unique in our publication of the hygiene assessment scores of abattoirs and meat-cutting plants in this country. That does not occur anywhere else in Europe. I encourage retailers and retail butchers to make it clear to customers that they are purchasing beef and other meat that comes only from abattoirs with high hygiene scores. That is how the customer knows that it is British beef.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: In view of the fact that the Government fell flat on their face in the Selkirk sheriff court—and it was a very welcome ruling—would it not make sense, politically, commercially and in terms of public health and the consumption of beef generally, to pull the plug on the outstanding legal case that the Government are pursuing south of the border? In so doing, they would enable people to make their own assessment of the billion-to-one risk associated with eating beef on the bone. Every register of public opinion on the matter has revealed that people believe that the Government are wrong and that the courts, increasingly, are correct.

Mr. Rooker: For two days running this week, I have seen letters in the Scottish press supporting the Government's position.

Dr. Lewis Moonie: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, to date, 24 people have died from new variant CJD? Will he confirm also that we are not yet aware of the incubation period of the disease, and therefore we cannot at present identify how many cases there might be—it could be hundreds, tens of thousands or even more? Therefore, will my hon. Friend assure the House today that the Government have no intention of being deflected from their purpose of maintaining the ban on infectivity in meat by the stupidity of the Opposition or other political parties, or by the mendacity of the press?

Mr. Rooker: I have not forgotten—and I have received letters from the general public that confirm it—that the night we debated the beef on the bone regulations and I read to the House the clinical symptoms of new variant CJD, I was laughed down by the Opposition.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Is the Minister aware that Airtours, one of the leading package holiday firms in this country, has a policy of serving only Argentinian beef for its in-flight meals?


Is that not a scandal at a time when the beef industry is under severe pressure? Will the Minister make urgent representations to Airtours to lift its ban on British beef?

Mr. Rooker: Yes, it is a disgrace. There is no justification for that policy and if the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me, I shall follow up the matter.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: Is it not the case that any course of action other than banning beef on the bone would have meant repeating the same old mistakes that the previous Government made? We have seen what happens when reports from medical officers are swept under the carpet or dismissed. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if it were left to the public, various experts would appear on the media, week after week, arguing that beef on the bone was or was not dangerous, and there would be a protracted period in which confidence in beef would dramatically fall? The Government's swift action did not dent confidence in beef, and beef sales did not fall significantly.

Mr. Rooker: I agree with my hon. Friend—any sensible person would. The House should think about what the headlines would have been had we been the first Government knowingly to allow BSE infectivity into the food chain.

Mr. Robert Key: Will the Minister and the House share some good news with me, and join me in congratulating a company in my constituency called Pure Organics? The company was almost put out of business by BSE, but has come good. In Brighton recently, it won the organic award at the Brighton natural products show with its magnificent and innovative products—"Meaty Hoolas", "Barmy Bangers" and "Veggie Beanies". It has become a winning company, which illustrates how British food producers can adapt from crisis to success.

Mr. Rooker: I am more than happy to join the hon. Gentleman in celebrating the undoubted success of that company in his constituency. Perhaps an early visit is called for.

Beef Export Ban

6. Mr. Dennis Canavan: What progress he is making on ending the export ban on British beef. [39113]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): The European Union Agriculture Council agreed in March to allow exports from Northern Ireland to resume under the export certified herd scheme. The Commission is now preparing a proposal for a date-based export scheme, which would apply across the whole of the United Kingdom and permit the export of beef and beef products from animals born after 1 August 1996.

Mr. Canavan: Although I welcome the approval of the export certified herd scheme for Northern Ireland, has our presidency of the European Union led to any indication of exactly when the total ban on UK exports will be

lifted? Once the new cattle traceability scheme has been introduced in September this year, can we expect the ban to be lifted before the end of the year?

Dr. Cunningham: I hope that the Commission, which is in charge of the timetable on this matter, will bring a proposal before the Standing Veterinary Committee of the European Commission next month. It will then be for that committee to determine whether the scheme is acceptable. If it decides that it is not, the matter may then come to the Council of Agriculture Ministers for a final decision. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that my ministerial colleagues, officials in the Ministry and I are making every possible effort to expedite those decisions. The cattle traceability scheme will be operational later this year. The important point about the date-based scheme is that it would apply to all animals throughout the United Kingdom born after 1 August 1996. However, existing restrictions, such as the over-30-months scheme and other schemes to safeguard the public, would remain in place, at least for the moment.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Minister will recall that when we met him a few weeks ago, we pressed for a date-based scheme. To that extent, we welcome the progress that has been made. When the matter is considered in the Standing Veterinary Committee towards the end of May, will he know whether all our partners in Europe agree with that procedure? If that committee gives the go-ahead, will that mean that, by the autumn, the ban could be lifted?

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. That is the accepted procedure and there can be no deviation from it. Whether every member state is happy with the proposal remains to be seen. If the scheme is approved, it will be the beginning of the end of the ban on exports of British beef.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: At Question Time yesterday, in reply to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney), and at Question Time the previous Wednesday, the Prime Minister struck a note of cautious optimism. He said that there was a reasonable prospect of success at the May standing committee. Will my right hon. Friend throw a little more light on that?

Dr. Cunningham: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is right to be cautious, because it is difficult to predict the outcome as we have to convince a qualified majority of the member states of the European Union to support the scheme. We are doing everything we can to maximise that support. Like the Prime Minister, I am cautiously optimistic. In the meantime, we shall do everything possible to persuade our partners to support the scheme.

Mr. Michael Jack: In the past 12 months, whenever I have raised the issue of extra help for Britain's beef farmers, the Minister has chastised me for making such an overgenerous suggestion. He prays in aid the size of the public spending limits that he inherited. Will the right hon. Gentleman assist me and the House by telling


us what the public spending limit was that he inherited, what the outturn was, and what his plans are for the current year?

Dr. Cunningham: Notwithstanding what we said when we came into office, we have provided an extra £155 million for the livestock industry.

Mr. Jack: The Minister does not know what public spending limit he inherited and cannot tell us what the outturn was. Let me help him. He should have spent £139 million more than he has done. His target for next year is an underspend of £46 million compared with the figures that he inherited. Does he agree that farmers will regard that as a rip-off, and will feel that the Ministry has failed in its duty to support fanning at such a difficult time? Will he reconsider spending for the current financial year and ensure that he spends up to the public spending limit that he inherited to make certain that the help we left for farmers reaches them?

Dr. Cunningham: That is total and absolute rubbish. The right hon. Gentleman is comparing estimates. From the little that we can glean from his almost incoherent presentation of the facts, he is referring to Intervention Board expenditure, not to MAFF's budget. That is further evidence of his failure to grasp the reality of what is going on.

Tree Planting

Sir Sydney Chapman: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the co-ordination between his Ministry and other relevant Departments on tree-planting initiatives. [39114]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Forestry Commission is the department for forestry in Great Britain. I am satisfied that it co-ordinates effectively with other relevant departments on tree-planting initiatives.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Does the Minister agree that a good way in which to celebrate the millennium would be to encourage people, families and organisations to plant trees in co-ordination with local authorities and community forest projects? Does he also agree that now would be an opportune time to start planting? This year marks the 25th anniversary of the "Plant a Tree in '73" campaign, in which some of us played a modest part. Will he give a special message of encouragement to the Tree Council, which was established to maintain the impetus for tree planting given by the 1973 campaign?

Mr. Morley: I am happy to support the Tree Council. I agree that planting trees would be an appropriate way in which to mark the millennium. In my home village of Winterton, a millennium wood has been planted by the local community. MAFF has asked for an English forestry initiative to expand forestry in England.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: Will my hon. Friend encourage more tree planting in derelict mine areas, which contain contaminated land? If those vast areas of

dereliction could sustain tree planting, it would do the communities a power of good. They lost so much when the Tory Government devastated the mining industry.

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I can give him the assurance that we are having discussions with the Forestry Commission to establish how we can plant on those very areas.

Mr. David Curry: When the Minister is considering co-ordination, will he look at the co-ordination between his Ministry and its regional offices? Farmers wishing to submit applications for aid schemes—including tree planting—sometimes approach a regional office and, if they have made a mistake, are given informal advice. They are sometimes invited to fill in a new form. On occasion, however, when the forms come to the central department and are checked, the advice is repudiated, and the farmer is not given what he was led to believe he could have.
Will the Minister consider issuing a code of guidance for regional offices, so that they react similarly to similar circumstances, and so that farmers know that, if they make an informal approach, what they are told—in good faith and with the best of intentions—will stick? This is a small but persistently irritating point.

Mr. Morley: I was in the Nottingham regional office yesterday, talking to staff. I am confident that the advice farmers receive—they very much appreciate the devolved system of regional advice centres—is accurate and generally works. If the right hon. Gentleman can give examples of apparent failure, and wishes to write to me, I shall be only too pleased to look into the matter.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Paddy Tipping: What steps he is taking to ensure that CAP reform increases job opportunities in rural areas. [39115]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): Increasing job opportunities in all areas, including rural areas, is a key priority for the Government. We will take account of that priority in the negotiations on CAP reform.

Mr. Tipping: Is not the most effective way of creating new jobs in rural areas to ensure that Departments work together? Will that not ensure that planning, training and support for small businesses are used effectively? Does my right hon. Friend accept that the present departmental structures and agencies are not necessarily organised in the best possible way?

Dr. Cunningham: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's first point. That is why the Government have instituted reviews across Departments, including a review of countryside and rural policy. As for matters involving reorganisation and responsibilities in Whitehall, some of those are under discussion. The Select Committee on Agriculture also had some recommendations to make, but it is too soon for us to announce any conclusions.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that, by cutting hill livestock compensatory allowances by £35 million this year, he has damaged job prospects in upland areas? Can he explain why the British presidency has not yet done more to reform the common agricultural policy during the six-month period?

Dr. Cunningham: I was delighted to see that even the hon. Lady smiled when asking the second part of her question. She must know that the detailed proposals for reform of the CAP were published only last month, and that I immediately called a special additional Council meeting for Agriculture Ministers to begin discussing those proposals straight away. Moreover, we had already prepared detailed official working parties, so the proposals went straight into detailed consideration by member states. I assure the hon. Lady that there has been no delay on our part.
As for the first part of the hon. Lady's question, she will recall that in December we announced an additional £85 million of support over and above last year's level for farmers, particularly those in less-favoured areas. Since that decision, we have announced that the Government will fund, with an additional £70 million, items including the start-up costs and the first year's running costs of the cattle traceability scheme.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of the new jobs in rural areas will undoubtedly be in tourism and that tourism, especially in the hill country, will mean that we have to preserve the present balance and not destroy those things that attract people to such areas?

Dr. Cunningham: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that we must look increasingly for additional opportunities to improve farm incomes, which means providing farmers with help and support for a variety of developments, including, where possible and where farmers wish it, involvement in tourism. If, as my hon. Friend says, we as a nation wish to preserve the nature, heritage and environment in our countryside and environmentally sensitive areas, we as a nation must find better ways to pay for that preservation than we have found hitherto.

Agricultural Support

Mr. Robert Walter: What assessment he has made of the EU Commission's proposals for national envelopes as part of the reform of the common agricultural policy. [39116]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): We welcome the principle that member states should be allowed to target a proportion of agricultural support in accordance with national priorities. We need to ensure that the UK's share of moneys allocated to that exercise is fair and appropriate.

Mr. Walter: That is a slightly disappointing answer, because the danger of national envelopes is that the European Union will become an even less level playing field. Will the Minister assure us that, if that scheme were to come into existence, national envelopes would not be

used as a substitute for existing national programmes of support, which would mean that farmers would not receive any additional support from those national envelopes and would leave British agriculture in an even less competitive position?

Mr. Morley: Conservative Members face a dichotomy on issues of that sort: on the one hand, they argue for maximum subsidiarity and, on the other, when there is an opportunity for member states to have more flexibility and autonomy in the way in which European funding is spent, that causes them concern. We are aware of the danger of the approach in terms of distortion of competition and we shall take that danger seriously.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Will not national envelopes encourage the farming industry to accept the realities of life which they are so reluctant to accept, which are that the markets for many existing products are diminishing and that farmers must diversify into areas for which there are better markets and which will employ more people? Those areas are organic farming—we currently import most products—flax growing, coppicing and the growing of fuel crops.

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes the important point that the idea behind national envelopes is to move away from direct production support, which is one of our objectives as a Government, and instead redirect money toward environmental and socio-economic support and support for alternative crops of the sorts which he mentions.

Mr. Tim Collins: Given that previous CAP reforms have often served to increase both the volume and complexity of the forms that British farmers have to fill in, will the Minister have a word with his officials and tell them that farmers who openly admit errors, honestly committed and arising from simple misunderstanding, should not be penalised when they make representations to Ministers to ask for the facts to be corrected? In that way, farmers will not lose out, as happens time and again when they honestly admit having made a mistake.

Mr. Morley: The rules on penalties for farmers who make a mistake in filling in forms are European Union rules, so we have limited flexibility in that respect. However, we are giving consideration to the issue.

Agrimoney Compensation

Mr. Richard Livsey: When he will provide agrimoney compensation for British farmers. [39118]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): As already announced, the Government have decided to draw down some £85 million of agrimonetary compensation to the beef and sheep sectors. To date, 95 per cent. of that aid has been paid. This is the first occasion on which a UK Government have paid such aid.

Mr. Livsey: I am sure that the Minister will agree that the current strength of the pound is having a disastrous


effect on agriculture. What discussions has he had with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the EU Commission to obtain agrimoney compensation, especially as there is to be a revaluation shortly? If he is not prepared to secure that, what will he do to prevent the imminent bankruptcy of many livestock farmers in the west and north of Britain?

Dr. Cunningham: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has conceded, we recognise that the strength of sterling is causing problems in the economy. However, having taken the decision, which the Liberal Democrats welcomed, to establish the Monetary Policy Committee, we must await its decisions on such matters.
As for agrimonetary compensation, I shall set out the figures which the hon. Gentleman, with his distinguished record in farm management, probably already knows: we have already used 75 per cent. of the agrimonetary aid we could pay to beef producers this year and 95 per cent. of what we are allowed to pay to sheep farmers.

Mr. John Townend: Will the right hon. Gentleman now be honest and admit that more money was available for help in the past year? The Red Book shows, on page 49, that you underspent by £139 million—that is £139 million less than the Conservative Government budgeted for. Will you now be more accurate—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should say, "Will the Minister now be more accurate?"

Mr. Townend: Will the Minister now be more accurate than he was in answering the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack)?

Dr. Cunningham: If the hon. Gentleman stayed calmer in posing his question, he would be able to reflect on the inaccuracy of what he says. He refers to Intervention Board figures, not MAFF figures.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

The Attorney-General was asked—

Lenient Sentences

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: How many appeals he made against sentences considered to be too lenient in 1996 and 1997; and if he will make a statement. [39138]

The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): In 1996, the Law Officers referred the sentences imposed on 70 offenders to the Court of Appeal for their sentences to be reviewed under the provisions of section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. All those references have been heard, and sentences were increased for 51 offenders. In 1997, the sentences of a further 70 offenders were referred to the Court of Appeal for their sentences to be reviewed. Of those references, sentences have been increased for 43 offenders; six references have yet to be heard.

Mr. Llwyd: What procedures are being adopted to take account of the views of the victims of crime? I am sure that the Attorney-General will agree that that is an important component in ensuring that justice is seen to be done.

The Attorney-General: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. I can refer sentences that appear to me to be unduly lenient, but I take into account the impact on victims—I regard that as important—and the danger to the public. Those features can result in sentences being increased—indeed, very long terms of imprisonment can be imposed under the Act.

Mr. Brian White: Is the Attorney-General aware of the consequences of lenient sentences on the many agencies that are trying to improve estates and make them safe? Lenient sentences can give rise to despair, and even cause more crime, as they lead people to believe that we are not serious about tackling crime. The Government must tackle lenient sentences as a key aspect in creating a safer Britain.

The Attorney-General: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that it is of the utmost importance to ensure that life is made as safe as possible for all our people and that, in many estates, that poses an even greater problem for a whole host of reasons. He must know, however, that I cannot refer lenient sentences full stop; I can refer only unduly lenient sentences within the parameters laid down by the Court of Appeal in the decisions that it takes from time to time. I personally consider these matters and, if I do not, my noble and learned Friend the Solicitor-General does.

Lockerbie

Mr. Tam Dalyell: How many people in his office are currently working on matters relating to the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. [39139]

The Attorney-General: The conduct of the criminal investigation into the Lockerbie tragedy is in the hands of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, as is the conduct of the on-going litigation before the International Court of Justice. However, officials from my office are involved in consideration and discussion of the matter as appropriate.

Mr. Dalyell: In the light of yesterday's Adjournment debate, can the third most ancient Member of Parliament in parliamentary terms ask the second most ancient Member of Parliament in parliamentary terms whether, as a distinguished lawyer and Queen's Counsel, he is bothered that the investigation should have gone on for 10 long years? Are not crucial witnesses such as Vincent Cannistraro, Buck Revell and Oliver North naturally getting older and older? Would any trial be meaningful without their presence?

The Attorney-General: I do not think that I can accept my hon. Friend's comment that he and I are the most ancient Members of the House. I have known my hon. Friend for more years than anyone else in the House. He is the third most senior member and I am the second—perhaps that description would be more appropriate.


I am aware of my hon. Friend's great interest in this subject and I have, in all seriousness, read the account of yesterday's debate in the House. However, the concern identified in my hon. Friend's question to me today is not one on which 1 can properly comment. It is a matter for my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, who has conduct of the prosecution and, ultimately, for the court that tries the case.

Mr. Alan O'Connor

Mr. Andrew Robathan: If he will make a statement on the failed prosecution in Leicester Crown court on 20 January of those charged with assaulting Mr. Alan O'Connor. [39140]

The Attorney-General: I know that the hon. Gentleman has received a helpful and full explanation from the Director of Public Prosecutions about this case, where the early handling of the investigation presented particular difficulties in relation to the identification evidence. These should have been addressed sooner than they were by the Crown Prosecution Service in this case. More generally, the CPS and Leicestershire police have set up a working party to consider such problems and to produce guidance to assist investigating officers.

Mr. Robathan: I am grateful for that sensible response from the Attorney-General. Does he accept that a case such as this—where two defendants were apprehended at the scene of a serious assault, where 11 witnesses came forward at the time, having seen the defendants assault my constituent, and where the defendants had blood on their shoes from kicking my defendant—undermines public confidence in the whole legal system, not just in the CPS? Will he tell the CPS in Leicestershire to reopen the case, as it was never heard in court?

The Attorney-General: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's great concern. I have read his letters to the DPP and I have also read the replies. I do not wish to become unduly involved in this or any other case, as that would be contrary to the procedure laid down by my predecessor, Lord Havers. These are matters for the DPP.
I can assist the hon. Gentleman by repeating what the DPP has told me, because I asked to be informed following the hon. Gentleman's representations. First, it was a group identification carried out by the security staff and no steps were taken to prevent witnesses from talking among themselves. As I understand it, no identification was made by the victims—they failed to do that. The Court of Appeal has laid down specifically, and warned, that there is a difficulty in relying on this type of group identification. Indeed, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, passed under the previous Administration, codes of practice were laid down and must be adhered to, to ensure that there is fairness.
What went wrong in this case was that the initial identification was carried out wrongly. It was pointed out by the CPS more than once that there could be some sort of failure. Unfortunately, the CPS did not pursue the matter and ensure that the police gave an opportunity to other witnesses to see a proper parade, which would be admissible in the court and which would form part of the evidence. That is a matter of deep regret and the DPP has made her position quite clear and apologised to the hon. Gentleman.
As regards the blood on the shoes, that was not a direct and unassailable piece of evidence. All it showed was that one of the defendants was in a position approximate to where the incident occurred, and no more.

Criminal Investigations

Mr. Gordon Prentice: What responsibilities he has to ensure that criminal investigations are not unduly prolonged. [39141]

The Attorney-General: Neither the Director of Public Prosecutions nor I have any powers or responsibility for the investigation of alleged criminal offences. The conduct of criminal investigations is a matter for the police, who have a general duty to investigate allegations as expeditiously as possible, consistent with the interests of justice.

Mr. Prentice: I thank the Attorney-General for that answer. However, he will know that, in some other common law jurisdictions, police investigations that have dragged on for a very long time are called in, perhaps after 12 months, for review by an independent body, to ascertain the reasons for that delay. Given the Attorney-General's responsibility for the Serious Fraud Office—where investigations can roll on for years and years—and the concerns expressed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and others about police corruption, in which investigations may be put on the back burner by serving police officers, would not such an independent review body be a very useful safeguard?

The Attorney-General: This matter could well be considered. However, my hon. Friend—who I know has looked into the matter—will understand the difference between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. The principle underlying establishment of the CPS was to separate the investigative process from prosecution. The situation is not the same in the SFO. Moreover, matters concerning the police are for the Home Secretary. Delay at any stage in investigating alleged criminal offences is a matter that can properly be taken into account by the CPS when considering a decision on whether to prosecute. Furthermore, the courts may take account of delay in all instances in which a case is made of abuse of process.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: With regard to the Attorney-General's wider responsibilities for the enforcement of the law, does he agree that, in a civilised society, it is precisely when feelings are running very high that enforcement of the rule of law is at its most important? Although no one in the House would approve of the fact that someone who has committed an appalling crime should seek to profit from it, is it not the case that, when the court has made an order to seek to protect the innocent in those matters, everything should be done to ensure that that order of the court is not set at nought? Will the Attorney-General liaise with the Lord Chancellor and others involved in the matter to ensure that the innocent are protected when the courts intended them to be protected, and that they do not become the victims of either press frenzy or mob rule?

The Attorney-General: I agree entirely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments. I agree also that the rule of law is of paramount importance specifically when feelings and passions are running as high as they are in that specific instance. The official solicitor is the child's guardian ad litem and is responsible for taking whatever action is necessary in the child's interests. I shall certainly take into account the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments and draw them to the attention of the Lord Chancellor. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I share concern for the welfare of young people. Whenever anonymity is at stake, one must do what one can to ensure that it is preserved. I am sure that the official solicitor will take into account the right hon. and learned Gentleman's observations.

Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. Bill O'Brien: What new proposals he has to increase the proportion of successful prosecutions of cases brought by the CPS; and if he will make a statement. [39142]

The Attorney-General: In the past six years, approximately 98 per cent. of defendants prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service in the magistrates courts were convicted. That figure includes defendants who pleaded guilty. The corresponding figure for Crown court cases is just over 90 per cent. However, such statistics in themselves are not comprehensive indicators of performance. My hon. Friend will be aware that this Administration have established a review of the Crown Prosecution Service under the chairmanship of Sir Iain Glidewell whose terms of reference include scrutiny of these matters.

Mr. O'Brien: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Will he advise the House what action his Department is taking in respect of co-ordination and

co-operation between various prosecuting departments to prevent any errors and confusion that may arise due to the lack of co-ordination with prosecutors? Will he also take action to ensure that we speed up the rate at which outstanding cases are brought to court so that people can have the satisfaction of knowing that justice will be done?

The Attorney-General: I am glad that my hon. Friend raised this matter, because it is sometimes forgotten that there are a number of different prosecuting agencies. I became aware of and concerned about the issue not long after taking office. In the past, poor co-ordination may have occasionally caused a problem. However, in February, I introduced the prosecutors convention which promotes a closer working relationship between all major Government prosecutors who are signatories to the agreement. It provides a structured approach to co-ordinated decision making and, whenever possible, the timing of any joint public announcement of the final prosecution decisions. I regard that as a major improvement.

Mr. Richard Allan: Is the Attorney-General concerned about the low rate of successful prosecutions in rape cases? Does he have any plans to work with the Home Secretary to improve the quality of evidence available to the Crown Prosecution Service through the use of specialist facilities for rape victims?

The Attorney-General: Rape cases have particular difficulties. They are not as easy as many other cases to prosecute so that there is a finding of guilt, particularly when the issue—as it frequently is—is consent. The Crown Prosecution Service is always deeply aware of the need to ensure that the best possible evidence is made available to the court so that the jury can reach a fair and proper verdict, but in my experience there are frequently difficulties in such cases.

Kosovo

Mr. Michael Howard: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent developments in Kosovo.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his question.
The crisis in Kosovo is of increasing concern. Since the Contact Group last met, we have received reports of numerous incidents involving fighting between the Yugoslav Army and Kosovar Albanians. The number of Yugoslav security forces in the province increases daily. Last week, Belgrade claimed that its soldiers had killed 17 members of the Kosovar liberation army, who they said were among 200 armed men crossing the border with Albania.
The reality is that President Milosevic continues to choose violence and repression over dialogue. The increase in the number of heavily armed soldiers, tanks and artillery pieces in the province, and the repression that they are imposing on the Kosovar people, are a direct block to any political solution. It is difficult to have any confidence that the Yugoslav army is acting proportionately and in observance of human rights. Although a large number of alleged terrorists have now been killed, no terrorist has yet appeared before a court and Milosevic has still not offered a meaningful dialogue, including the international involvement requested by the Contact Group.
When the Contact Group first met to discuss Kosovo on 9 March, it spelt out a 10-point action plan for a return to stability and also adopted four sanctions against the Belgrade Government. Action has now been taken on all the measures that can be adopted by the international community.
Last Monday, at the meeting of the General Affairs Council, we committed all the countries of the European Union to a ban on Government export credit to Belgrade and a ban on visas for certain members of the Yugoslav Government.
The United Nations Security Council has now carried a resolution imposing an arms embargo on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Both the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the European Union have stepped up their monitoring activities in Albania and on its border with Kosovo. The European Community monitoring mission has been deployed within Kosovo. The Contact Group has fulfilled its commitment to meet representatives of the countries of the region to seek their views and to reassure them of our commitment to stability throughout their region.
Although the European Union, the OSCE and the United Nations have fulfilled each of the measures recommended by the Contact Group, it is a matter of deep regret that President Milosevic has taken few of the steps demanded of him by the Contact Group.
It was against that background that senior officials from the Contact Group countries met yesterday in Rome to assess the performance of President Milosevic. They had

been tasked to measure it against benchmarks set at the meeting that I chaired in London. They were united in their assessment that he had failed to meet those benchmarks.
Yesterday, therefore, the Contact Group agreed to implement a freeze on the funds held abroad by the Governments of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and of Serbia. We also agreed that, on 9 May, if there has been no change in Belgrade's approach, we shall take action to stop new investment in Serbia. I must tell the House that Russia alone in the Contact Group has so far dissociated itself from those further measures.
I hope that the House will join me in sending a clear message to Belgrade: that the international community is united in rejecting violence, the abuse of human rights and the denial of legitimate political expression.
Equally, we are united in calling on the Kosovar Albanians to renounce terrorism and to engage in political dialogue. No quarter can be given to terrorism, but the fight against terrorism must not become an excuse for widespread repression. We do not support independence for Kosovo, but we believe that its present status must be enhanced through meaningful autonomy. We are therefore determined to promote political dialogue on an enhanced status for Kosovo between Belgrade and Pristina as the only course that is likely to produce a stable, peaceful outcome.
We have set out a clear choice for President Milosevic. If he chooses peace and reconciliation, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia can be accepted into the family of democratic nations of modern Europe. If he chooses repression and ethnic confrontation, he will himself condemn his country to deepening and continuing isolation. I am sure that the whole House will join me in urging him to choose peace and reconciliation.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his reply and I associate the Opposition with his concluding remarks and his condemnation of repression and violence.
Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that more than 150 people have been killed in Kosovo in the past two months alone? On 7 April, I asked him to take a lead in urging that observers be stationed in Kosovo, on pain of increased sanctions against Serbia. He referred in his reply to the presence of the EU monitoring mission. Will he tell us more about its activities? How long has the mission been in Kosovo? How many members does it have? Are they allowed to operate without let or hindrance? Do they have free access to the parts of Kosovo that they want to visit?
Has the Red Cross continued to visit or monitor the area? What progress has been made on the extension of the mandate of the UN force on the border between Macedonia and Serbia, which my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) requested on 7 April? The Foreign Secretary told the House on that occasion that he was exploring with Albania and other neighbouring states how they might be provided with similar security and reassurance. Can he tell us what progress has been made in achieving that objective?


Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what confidence he has that the measures announced yesterday will be effective and what action he proposes to take if they do not have the effect that he and the whole House want them to have?

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his statement of support for the position taken by the Government and by the international community. It is an important signal to Belgrade that those there should understand that there is unity, not division, in the attitude of the international community.
The tragedy of Kosovo is that I am not able to confirm how many people have been killed. The figures for the past week have come from the Belgrade authorities. We have not been able to obtain any independent verification of them. I can say only that, from the figures that we have, the number killed certainly exceeds 100 and is most certainly far too high. Each one of the deaths is a cause for regret.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about monitoring. The European monitoring mission that has been deployed in Kosovo is technically attached to Belgrade. It has extended its remit and practice to provide controls in Kosovo. Our understanding is that, by and large, it has had a fair degree of ability to operate in the populated areas in Kosovo. I should add that, as a result of a decision of the Contact Group, every EU country is encouraging its embassy in Belgrade to send its staff on monitoring missions and provide a presence in Pristina and Kosovo. I should like to pay particular tribute to the defence attaché at our embassy in Belgrade, who has regularly toured Kosovo, often at considerable risk.
The Red Cross has deployed to Kosovo. My understanding is that it is continuing its presence there. The truth is that none of us has monitors in the remote mountainous regions where recent clashes took place. Such regions are, by and large, accessible only by the kind of military vehicle that the Yugoslav army has deployed.
On the issue of UNPREDEP—the UN preventative deployment force on the border with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia—I am pleased to say that there is a consensus at an international level that its mandate must be extended. The best way of doing that, and what is the best mix between an UN mandate and a NATO presence, are under discussion, but I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I am confident that we shall be able to extend that remit.
The OSCE monitors are now deployed in Albania. They and the European Community monitoring mission regularly visit, from Tirana, the border with Kosovo. We continue to be in dialogue with the Albanian Government as to how we can improve monitoring and observance of their border with Kosovo.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me what confidence I have in the response of President Milosevic. I must say that I would be unwise indeed to express any confidence in President Milosevic's behaviour. I met him shortly after the crisis began, at the very beginning of March, and I very much regret to say that he did not appear to show any understanding of the importance that the international community attaches to this issue. Nor did he appear to recognise that, if he wishes to defuse the growing difficulty of violence with Kosovo, the way in which to do so is not by escalating the violence but by

promoting political dialogue. I therefore cannot give the right hon. and learned Gentleman any assurance on behalf of President Milosevic. I can, though, assure him, and President Milosevic, that the international community will continue to show determination and resolve in giving priority to bringing the issue to a peaceful, not a violent, conclusion.

Mr. Donald Anderson: At the London conference that the Foreign Secretary convened, by skilful diplomacy, he kept a substantial degree of unity among the outside powers. We now understand that Russia has dissociated itself from the present range of measures. How does my right hon. Friend read that Russian position? It could be quite dangerous if Russia were, for example, to go beyond a technical dissociation and supply arms and other materiel to the Yugoslavs. How significant is it that Russia has dissociated itself from what was a common position?

Mr. Cook: Russia cannot—nor, for that matter, can any other country—now provide military equipment or materiel to the Government in Belgrade without being in defiance of a UN Security Council resolution for which Russia itself voted. On the arms embargo, I expect Russia to abide by the agreement that it gave to the Contact Group and the resolution it supported at the UN. It is a matter of regret that Russia has decided not to participate in some of the wider economic sanctions which have been applied. There is undoubtedly a risk that that division in the international community, and the practical support it may offer from Russia to Belgrade, could give heart to President Milosevic in ignoring the strong signals sent by the international community.
Although it can be difficult and frustrating working through a Contact Group in which there is no ready unanimity, it is much better that we preserve that forum as the basis for dialogue with other countries, such as Russia, which may not immediately share our approach to the situation to bring them on board as often as we can—as we did with success on the arms embargo. Finally, I note that, although Russia has not chosen to support the specific sanctions, it is frank and open in sharing our assessment of the situation in Kosovo and the need for international action.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is it not clear that an already explosive situation in Kosovo is likely only to deteriorate further unless the Milosevic Government abandon their provocation towards the ethnic Albanians and, in particular, their defiance of international opinion? What is the Foreign Secretary's assessment of the possible consequences for the fragile and tentative gains made in Bosnia if the unrest continues?
May I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman the proposals that I made earlier this week in a letter, one of which he has almost accepted—that the UN force on the Kosovo-Macedonia border should be strengthened? The Foreign Secretary has said that its mandate might be extended, but it is essential that the force should be strengthened. In view of the apparently favourable attitude of the Albanian Government, should not a NATO force be established to screen the Kosovo-Albania border? In addition, the Russian Government may not wish to associate themselves with all the conclusions of the Contact Group, but should they not, none the less, be


asked to persuade Mr. Milosevic to draw back before it is too late? Finally, without in any way endorsing military action, should not NATO officials be asked to study how the alliance's resources might best be used to preserve human rights and to maintain stability throughout the region?

Mr. Cook: On the last point, we remain in close dialogue with our NATO partners. We have examined what may be the best form of the continuing international military presence on the border of FYROM with Serbia. Exactly what that mix would be, and quite who would be best placed to ensure the right level of presence, is under discussion. I can guarantee that it will be extended and appropriate to the perceived threat and task for that force.
The hon. and learned Gentleman raised an important aspect of the current crisis—it is not confined simply to Kosovo, and the growing tension there can spill over elsewhere. It would be a deep tragedy if the mounting tension within Kosovo were to put in reverse the hard-won gains made within Bosnia. As the House will know, I recently addressed the assembly of Republika Srpska in Banja Luka. The change in politics there under the Administration of Mr. Dodik has been quite remarkable. The greatest source of hope for the future within Bosnia is if we can build on that to achieve reconciliation between Serb, Bosniak and Croat. We are determined to make sure that that is not put into reverse, and we are looking to see how we can make sure that the border of Bosnia is also secured. I totally echo the hon. and learned Gentleman's opening thought. The great tragedy of the current situation in Kosovo is that President Milosevic is now the best recruiting sergeant for the Kosovar liberation army.

Ann Clwyd: My right hon. Friend has painted a grim scenario. Should we not be actively preparing for military intervention, if only for humanitarian reasons, so that a catastrophe similar to the previous catastrophe in Europe can be avoided?

Mr. Cook: I understand the concern that prompts my hon. Friend's question. We discuss with our partners possible responses that may be needed. Previous experience has suggested that military involvement purely for humanitarian purposes would work only where there is acceptance by the host Government. At present, there is no prospect of that. The way forward is political dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina. That is the objective of the international community, to which we shall work. We must weigh carefully any suggestion of a military presence against the consequences of it elsewhere in the region. They would not always necessarily be peaceful, nor welcomed by all of the countries in the region.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: The Foreign Secretary has made welcome remarks about the tightening of sanctions. The reality is that sanctions appear to have had little effect on Milosevic; if anything, they deepen the nationalism in Serbia, although we should go ahead with them.
The key issue is the spread, and the risk of the spread, of the conflict to other parts of former Yugoslavia. The Government still do not appear to be doing enough to

press for an increased military presence in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. It is welcome that existing forces are to have their life extended, but is he pressing for a substantial increase in those forces and, if so, what level does the Foreign Secretary think is appropriate to offer an effective deterrence to possible Serb aggression in Macedonia?

Mr. Cook: I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman's second point, and then deal with his first point.
We must weigh carefully the purpose of the force on the border of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Its purpose is to provide a clear signal of confidence to the Government in Skopje and a clear signal of our concern to Belgrade, to make sure that it understands that concern. The great majority of the troops on the border are American. The number on the ground is much less of an important signal to Belgrade than the fact that they are American. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall make sure in our discussions, which are active at present, that whatever force is deployed will be appropriate to the task and the purpose of the force.
The hon. Gentleman made a fair point when he drew attention to the need for care so as not to drive the population of Serbia back behind President Milosevic, especially given that, over the years, more and more of them have shown a tendency to differ from him. When I was last in Belgrade, I met a number of young people who were associated with the independent radio network. Their views were as cosmopolitan, as pluralist and as forward-looking as those of young people in any other capital of Europe.
It is important that we send a signal to those of alternative views within Serbia that there is an alternative future for it: if President Milosevic and the Government in Belgrade responded to the offers and demands that we are making, we should be willing to work positively with Serbia. It is important that we send that signal if we are to maximise the courage of those who want to speak out against President Milosevic, rather than maximise Serbian support behind him.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend rightly talks about the need for conversation between Pristina and Belgrade, but, as President Milosevic has just had a massive referendum result, which would seem to cement him into his position, and the Albanians in Kosovo will talk only if there is an international presence at any talks, there seems to be an impasse.
Although we encourage my right hon. Friend and the Contact Group to get such talks going as soon as possible, is there not a case not only for strengthening the presence in Macedonia on the border but for putting in an international force on the Albanian border to show the determination of the international community that what is happening in Kosovo will not extend to other countries, where there could be a conflagration if signs and demonstrations are not made in respect of defending the Albanians in Kosovo?
Will my right hon. Friend give more detail of the presence at the feast of which there has been little discussion—the United States Government? What is their attitude, and are they giving a lead, as they have in the Balkans where Europe has failed in the past?

Mr. Cook: We remain in close contact with our colleagues in the United States and we work closely with


them in co-ordinating the position that we take to the Contact Group. It would be fair to say that all that I have expressed from the Dispatch Box today would be entirely shared by Madeleine Albright, the US Secretary of State. I hope to discuss those matters and others with her when she is in London this Sunday evening.
My hon. Friend referred to the referendum result. That massive referendum result seems to be a classic illustration of the maxim that if one writes the question one will get the answer that one wants, and in that case—[Interruption.] Our questions were entirely fair and received a perfectly fair and honest reply. I do not think that even those Conservative Members who are indulging in hilarity would defend the question as drafted by President Milosevic. We have no problem defending our questions, nor have the people who voted in large numbers for them.
My hon. Friend also referred to the need for international facilitation for the talks between Belgrade and Pristina. Those talks will happen only if there is some degree of international involvement. That is why we have recommended that Felipe Gonzalez, the representative of the President of the OSCE and of the EU, should have his mission accepted in Belgrade and should be allowed to start work there. We are willing to facilitate those talks and we believe that that is the best way in which those talks can start.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the international community, through the Contact Group, had information and intelligence that the situation in Kosovo was likely to deteriorate before violence took place there? Will he undertake an examination of how the Government use intelligence and information in order to spark Contact Group action and sanctions against members of the international community, such as President Milosevic, in advance of violent happenings when the Government have information available to prevent such things happening at the time, rather than wait for violence to happen and for us then to appear to be driven by our television screens?

Mr. Cook: I am not aware of any specific intelligence of the character to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but we have responded rapidly and robustly to the developing situation. Within two weeks of the violence, we had the first meeting of the Contact Group which applied the first four sanctions. We now have in place an arms embargo and a number of economic sanctions. That compares and contrasts favourably with the international community's record back in 1991 at the first break-up of the former Yugoslavia when it took almost a year to apply any sanctions. We are now in a position where we have to review whether those measures are sufficient and whether others are required, but no one could fairly accuse the Contact Group or the EU of not responding with speed on this occasion.

Mr. John Home Robertson: My right hon. Friend has already referred to the disproportionate and oppressive deployment of Serb forces in Kosovo. Without necessarily drawing any conclusions, will he take this opportunity to confirm that NATO has the capacity to maintain effective and accurate surveillance of those forces?

Mr. Cook: NATO, and our partners within NATO, have a capacity to maintain surveillance, but the

mountainous region near the border between Albania and Kosovo is a difficult terrain and our information as to what is happening on the ground is not as full as we should wish it to be. We shall obviously try to obtain the best information that we can and to act upon it, but we are dealing with a difficult Government who operate under a cloak of secrecy, and a mountainous terrain where surveillance is difficult.

Mr. John Randall: Do the British Government have evidence of any material aid coming to the Kosovar Albanians from outside, whether it be from the Republic of Albania or any other country, or a fundamentalist Muslim group?

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman asks a question about our intelligence information and he will understand why I cannot respond to it. We seek to understand as best we can from where support is coming. As best we know, the bulk of support that is reaching the Kosovar liberation army comes from fund raising throughout Europe. There is no great secrecy about that.

Mr. John Austin: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's very firm statement, but does he agree that the unity and resolve of the international community are essential if two dangerous messages are not to be sent? First, if it fails, President Milosevic will be reinforced in his view that he can oppress the people of Kosovo with impunity. Secondly, if the view takes root among the people of Kosovo that the international community is unable to protect them, it will undermine the peaceful approach that President Rugova has adopted, which so far has enjoyed the majority support of the Kosovar people. Does my right hon. Friend share my view that, if all that fails and Milosevic chooses the path of repression, the only solution will be to recognise the rights of the people of Kosovo to self-determination?

Mr. Cook: I must first respond to my hon. Friend's last point. If by self-determination he means a right to independence, I have to say that no voice in the international community supports independence for Kosovo. We must be very much alive to two features when we handle that question: the consequence throughout the rest of the Balkans of such a development and the extent to which what we do would undermine one of the principles that we are trying to apply throughout the Balkans—the inviolability of international borders.
The rest of my hon. Friend's question is perfectly fair and is, indeed, political common sense. If President Milosevic continues on the present path, he will make it much more difficult for the present political leadership of the Kosovar Albanians to maintain their standing pursuit of peaceful reconciliation and peaceful progress. I believe that President Milosevic is fortunate in the leadership of the Kosovar Albanians, who have rejected violence as a means forward, and I am pleased to say that the very large participation by the Kosovar people in the parallel elections there showed their own rejection of the boycott demand of the Kosovar liberation army.

Mr. Keith Simpson: Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that elements of the British Army will


be undertaking an exercise in Macedonia? What does he believe that they will contribute to stabilising the current crisis?

Mr. Cook: I am not aware of that, and I am not in a position to say what the Ministry of Defence may be doing on that. We maintain close contact with those who are in UNPREDEP, and we would certainly not necessarily shirk our own participation.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: If the sanctions and embargoes outlined by my right hon. Friend today persuade President Milosevic to engage in genuine political dialogue with the ethnic Albanians, does he anticipate former Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez playing a role, analogous to that so ably performed by Senator George Mitchell, in the attainment of a tolerable accommodation between the Serbs and the ethnic Albanians?

Mr. Cook: Let me first respond to the previous question and say that I am advised that there has been British participation in a long-standing NATO exercise within the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. To respond to the question that has just been put to me, yes, we do see a clear role for Felipe Gonzalez's mission. Whether the type of detailed role that my hon. Friend suggests is one that Mr. Gonzalez, or someone working with his mission, would carry out is a matter for discussion and to be elaborated.
Tragically, we are a long way from that, because we have yet to obtain agreement from President Milosevic that he will receive Mr. Gonzalez's mission. If President Milosevic wishes to take the first step of bringing the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia back into the international community and modern Europe, I urge him to accept as soon as possible that the way to do so is to enter into dialogue with those who are appointed to represent it by the international community.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's measured tones, but does he find it not only regrettable but ominous that Russia would not associate itself with the Contact Group's decision late last night? If he casts his mind back to the time of the conflict in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, he will recall that many arms, and material and other forms of support, came from the Russian Government or from sources within the Russian Federation. What hope can he give today that sanctions will be more effective now than they were in 1992?

Mr. Cook: As I told the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) earlier, I can make no confident prediction as to what President Milosevic's response will be. Certainly, if the international community is going to be obliged to assert its will through sanctions, those sanctions will take time to have their effect. Nevertheless, neither the hon. Gentleman nor the House should underrate the extent to which we have put in place a formidable array of sanctions. They include: a ban on Government credit for exports; a ban on investment in the privatisations of President Milosevic; and, unless there is a change by

9 May, a ban on investment. We are also imposing a freeze on his Government's assets. We have chosen measures that will hit the Government and President Milosevic, not the ordinary people of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Those measures are considerable and they will have a serious impact on the functioning of that Government.

Mr. Harry Barnes: When economic sanctions helped to change the situation in South Africa, they had the support of the African National Congress, which spoke for the mass of the people there. Has there been any equivalent response in Yugoslavia, or in Kosovo among the majority Albanian population? Do they support sanctions which, in the end, will affect the ordinary people as well as the leadership of the Yugoslav regime?

Mr. Cook: As far as we are aware, all the steps taken by the Contact Group have had broad support from the leadership of the Kosovar Albanians. Kosovo's economy is quite distinct from that of Belgrade, so I do not believe that the measures that we have adopted have given rise to any tension on their part. The point was made when I last reported to the House that there is some anxiety among the neighbouring countries that we should avoid trade sanctions that would hit them as hard as Belgrade. That is why we have chosen a range of economic sanctions targeted on Belgrade, not on friendly neighbouring countries.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is not the inconvenient reality that, without the support of Slav Russia, the rest of us can whistle in the wind as long as we like without being able to influence President Milosevic? In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the Foreign Secretary replied that the Russians had said that they wanted international action. What exactly do they want; what do they think should be done?

Mr. Cook: I am not entirely sure that my hon. Friend's concluding questions might not be better addressed to Mr. Primakov. I can tell him that, through our dialogue in the Contact Group, we have persuaded Russia—not with any initial enthusiasm on its part—to sign up to the international arms embargo. That is an important gain, given Russia's powerful historic role as a supplier of weapons to the former Yugoslavia. It is true that it would greatly assist the impact of the measures that we have adopted if Russia were an enthusiastic participant in them; but I cannot accept the implication of my hon. Friend's opening comment—that, without Russia's support, we should not try to do anything. It is important that we do all that we can; Europe was an important source of much of the investment and many of the export credits that were going to the FRY. Europe therefore can have a serious impact through the economic sanctions.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: While the flaking away of Russia was regrettable, was it not also highly predictable, and did it not strengthen the need for the rest of the Contact Group to remain unanimous in its resolve to stand up to Slobodan Milosevic's nationalist


aggression? Is it not now time to accede to the Albanian Government's requests for troop deployments on their border with Kosovo?

Mr. Cook: As I have said in responding to several hon. Members, we have consulted our partners on this issue. The House should not underrate the extent to which the European Union and OSCE actively monitor the border between Albania and Kosovo.
On whether Russia's departure, or defection, on those measures was inevitable, I can say only that we shall have an opportunity to discuss that again in a fortnight's time when all the Foreign Ministers of the Contact Group will be in London for the G8 Foreign Ministers' meeting. We shall also take up many of those points again with Mr. Primakov.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Much of the media that cater for the Albanian ethnic population have been closed by direct acts of violence or by the actions of a corrupt judicial system. One newspaper was punished by a judge for printing, accurately, a headline reading, "15 Albanians killed", which he irrationally said should have read, "15 terrorists killed". Will the Government act to replace Albanian radio stations that are now silent with alternative stations broadcasting from outside Kosovo?

Mr. Cook: I shall first respond to my hon. Friend's question, then share in the premise that led to it. Technically, it is not easy to do what he suggests in the terrain between Albania and Kosovo, and there are also serious issues of political sensitivity about beaming radio stations from Albania into Kosovo. Having said that, I do not in any way dissociate myself from my hon. Friend's opening remarks. One of the tragedies of the situation within the federal republic is the way in which there is no genuine freedom of expression, particularly for the broadcast media. There is an absence of freedom of expression in Kosovo for Albanian language broadcasting stations. We continue to press the Government in Belgrade on that, and, although alternative subjects should not be ruled out, we should not avoid recognising that the primary responsibility lies with President Milosevic. He must be brought to grasp the fact that, in a modern Europe, freedom of expression for broadcasting stations is an essential part of a free and democratic state.

Business of the House

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: May I ask the Leader of the House to make a statement on the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The business for next week is as follows.
MONDAY 4 MAY—Bank holiday.
TUESDAY 5 MAY—Remaining stages of the Magistrates' Courts (Procedure) Bill [Lords].
Second Reading of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 6 MAY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Scotland Bill (first day).
THURSDAY 7 MAY—Second Reading of the Tax Credits (Initial Expenditure) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill.
FRIDAY 8 MAY—Debate on Hillsborough on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week is as follows.
MONDAY 11 MAY—Second Reading of the Competition Bill [Lords] (second day).
TUESDAY 12 MAY—Remaining stages of the Scotland Bill (second day).
WEDNESDAY 13 MAY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Social Security Bill.
THURSDAY 14 MAY—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Tax Credits (Initial Expenditure) Bill.
Debate and motions on modernisation of the House of Commons.
FRIDAY 15 MAY—The House will not be sitting.
The House may wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Whitsun recess on Thursday 21 May until Monday 1 June. I should emphasise that those dates remain tentative, as the legislative burden on the House has increased as a result of the peace process in Northern Ireland.

Mrs. Shephard: I thank the Leader of the House for her statement, for giving the business for two weeks and for the advance notice of the Whitsun recess. I know that the business for the second week is provisional, as the Leader of the House pointed out, but could she perhaps re-examine the timing of the debate on the modernisation of the House of Commons? She and I have been in touch about that matter and she knows that there is a difficulty on our side. We shall be accommodating, but I know that she will do her best to see what might be done.
The House will recall the right hon. Lady's answer last week when I asked whether we might have a debate on foreign affairs. We have just had the benefit of the presence of the Foreign Secretary in the Chamber in


response to a private notice question from the Opposition. We appreciate the pressure of business on the Government—although that is largely a matter of choice for them.
Following the publicity at the beginning of the year about Britain's presidency of the European Union, it seems curious that we have not heard more from the Foreign Secretary about that matter and about his ideas for an ethical foreign policy. I ask again that the right hon. Lady gives parliamentary credibility to the Government's expressed enthusiasm for the EU presidency and their new ideas for foreign policy by arranging a debate.
I repeat my request of last week regarding the publication of the registration of political parties Bill. The publication of that Bill was promised on 9 April in the other place, and it was claimed that the legislation would appear shortly after Easter. It is true that we are still in a period that could be loosely regarded as being shortly after Easter, but, as I said last week, the publication of that Bill and knowledge of its contents are necessary to our consideration of constitutional matters that will come before the House in both the Scotland and Wales Bills.
Will the right hon. Lady arrange for a debate on the financing of party political advertising? I have written to her about the disclosures in The Independent newspaper of 24 April that Labour Members of Parliament were apparently advised that they could claim the costs of party political briefings from the Fees Office. The House will be glad to have the right hon. Lady's confirmation that that was a try-on, that it is not an appropriate cost for the taxpayer to meet and that her colleagues have been advised accordingly.
Will the right hon. Lady arrange for a debate with Treasury Ministers so that we may hear whether they agree with figures produced by the House of Commons Library that, after a year of Labour government, the average family is £1,000 worse off? 
Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on ministerial responsibility, particularly regarding ministerial replies to letters from hon. Members? In the past, the right hon. Lady has, understandably and correctly, asked for specific examples. Sadly, I have two myself—both concerning the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Minister took from 27 January to 28 April to answer a simple query about sugar beet and, to date, despite repeated direct requests to his private office, he has found himself unable to reply to a letter that I sent on 7 February.
I cannot imagine what the Minister can be doing with himself. It is not as though he cares to participate in debates concerning his Ministry, which must save some time. I do not imagine that his job is very different in substance now from what it was when I did it. I hope that the right hon. Lady will take up those rather gross examples with her right hon. Friend. They cannot possibly accord with the image of themselves that the Government wish to convey.

Mrs. Taylor: I start by thanking the right hon. Lady for her opening remarks. She pointed out that the second week's business is always provisional, which is one of the reasons why we have had to alter next week's business.

I know about the real difficulties that the right hon. Lady has with the date on which we have scheduled the modernisation debate. However, we are extremely short of time. The right hon. Lady understands our difficulty, and I know that she wants the debate as much as I do. I cannot promise to reschedule the debate, but 1 shall undertake to look at it and do what I can.
I do not think that it will be possible to have a debate on foreign affairs before the Whitsun recess, but I hope that the situation will ease somewhat in the summer. We have extra legislative burdens because of the welcome progress that has been made in Northern Ireland, and the whole House would want us to make progress on those matters.
I hope that the Bill on the registration of political parties will be published shortly. The right hon. Lady knows that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has kept Opposition parties informed of our plans, going back to February and again this month, and he has invited comments to ensure that both sides of the House play a part in the drawing up of details.
The right hon. Lady suggested that the Labour party was asking its members to pay for party political briefing out of Fees Office money. I reject that interpretation of what was happening. There may have been some confusion over the precise nature of the service that was being suggested. Labour Members do not do, and have no intention of doing, anything other than abide by all the rules of the House.
We have had some extremely good debates on Treasury matters this week. My right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury have shown how much average families will benefit from the Budget. Having spent three days on that subject, there is no need to debate it further.
As for ministerial responses to answers, I shall look at the two specific examples that the right hon. Lady mentioned. I do not know whether she was here during MAFF questions earlier today to raise them directly with the Minister, but she is aware that many Departments have had a substantial increase in the volume of correspondence and, by and large, most Ministers reply to letters within the time guidelines that are laid down.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing concern about the handling of compensation claims by former miners suffering from lung disease and especially from the illest and oldest who seem to be excluded from compensation terms? Will she make arrangements at least for an appropriate statement to be made to deal with those matters, which are of considerable concern to many people?

Mrs. Taylor: I cannot promise a statement on that, but I know that my hon. Friend has a long-term interest in that problem, which particularly affects his constituents. I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is aware of his concerns today.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Can the Leader of the House confirm that this morning outside the House the Home Secretary made a statement—a remarkable statement—in which he admitted that his officials had for many months been aware of the Mary Bell controversy,


yet Ministers were not briefed on the issue? Will she confirm that that statement was made and explain why, yet again, an important statement has been made outside the House instead of to the House?
May we have an idea of when we shall receive some guidance from the Government on their attitude to the wider issues of media ownership and media behaviour? I am thinking not just of the predatory pricing issue, which can be raised when we debate the Competition Bill the week after next, but of the serious issues that now arise. None of us wants to impose censorship, but we need guidance from the Government on their attitude to the extent to which the newspaper and media industries should be self-regulatory and exercising self-discipline. I have in mind the hypocrisy over cheque-book journalism, which was exposed yet again today, and incitement to commit breaches of the peace. The way in which the local and national media have been inciting people to act as lynch mobs is totally unacceptable. May we please have an early debate and a statement from the Home Secretary?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman raises important and sensitive issues. Any statement that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made would have been extremely carefully worded and factual. He would not have gone behind the back of the House.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, there will be a chance to raise the issue of media ownership when we debate the Competition Bill. I do not propose to find time for a wider debate in the near future in Government time, but next time the Liberal Democrat party has an Opposition day, it could consider that subject.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate, perhaps not in the immediate but in the not-too-distant future, on Home Office prison policy, particularly overcrowding in prisons, which has now become intolerable? Prison conditions are described as appalling at best. The test of a society is how it treats its prisoners, and we seem to be failing in that at the moment.

Mrs. Taylor: We have important legislation before the House on crime and disorder, to which those issues are relevant. I cannot promise an early debate on the aspect of the criminal justice system to which my hon. Friend refers, but it is Home Office questions a week on Monday.

Mr. Peter Brooke: May I constructively ask the Leader of the House to consider making a statement on the increasing tendency of Ministers to use mechanical signatures when replying to letters from hon. Members? Leaving aside the conflicting claims of courtesy and modernisation, it is not currently clear whether such practice is a general Government policy, which would have standard and universal conventions, or a series of private initiatives by individual Ministers.

Mrs. Taylor: It is not a general Government policy, and I do not think that it happens a great deal.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the exchanges that we had on Monday regarding the important White Paper on tackling the drugs problem were no substitute for a debate? None of the

Back Benchers who took part in those exchanges had had a chance to read the White Paper. It is amazing that we have gone through an entire year without a debate on this important matter. She may argue that Back Benchers can apply for a debate, but I have done so every parliamentary week of the year and have failed to secure one. We must have a chance to debate this important subject now that the Lisbon monitoring group has said that Britain has the worst problem of illegal drugs of any country in Europe.

Mrs. Taylor: I sympathise with my hon. Friend if he has been trying to secure a debate on drug issues. There have been some Adjournment debates on drugs in this Session, and hon. Members had an opportunity to air their views on the White Paper on Monday. I was pleased with the general support that the House gave to our approach to tackling the drugs problem.
I understand the need for a debate, but I am not sure about the precise timing. We are under great pressure on time, but I would give the matter sympathetic consideration. It may be better to have such a debate in a few months, when more outside bodies have been able to consider the White Paper. We could then determine how policy was progressing.

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: In Agriculture Question Time today, the Minister would not admit to the fact that the Government's White Paper on public expenditure shows a £139 million underspend. Will the Leader of the House find time for an early statement to clear up the confusion that afflicts an industry that has been badly affected? It is all the more important because the same source of figures shows a £46 million underspend for next year.

Mrs. Taylor: I cannot find time for such a statement, although there will be a debate on the common agricultural policy in the not-too-distant future. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said earlier.

Mr. Ernie Ross: On the comments by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), surely the point that my right hon. Friend should consider is whether Ministers read the correspondence and whether they make every effort to give a helpful, precise and concise response quickly. The fact that a mechanical signature has been used is not the key issue. Does she agree that it is more important that the Minister has read and dealt with the contents of the correspondence?

Mrs. Taylor: I understand that, in the case to which the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) referred, he received a personal assurance from the Minister that he had read the correspondence.

Sir Michael Spicer (West Worcestershire): As we are to debate economic and monetary union for only about two hours, will the right hon. Lady allow us another debate next week? If she is not prepared to do that, will she apologise for the shortness of time available this afternoon, given that a massive decision will be taken next weekend on EMU and that there are two important House of Commons reports before us?

Mrs. Taylor: No, I will not. The arrangements for today's debate were agreed through the usual channels,


and we undertook not to arrange for any extra statements today. It was, of course, a private notice question from the Opposition that curtailed today's debate.

Mr. David Winnick: Many of us hope that, when we debate the Competition Bill on Monday week, we shall be able to support the Government on the pricing of newspapers. Is my right hon. Friend aware that at leat some of us consider it wrong for one newspaper, The Times, to be priced so as deliberately—there is no other way of describing it—to undermine other broadsheets?

Mrs. Taylor: I think the House is well aware of the issues involved in the Bill, and the defective nature of the amendment tabled in another place; but there will be plenty of time in which to debate those issues on Second Reading.

Mr. David Curry: The Leader of the House will know that, in the past few months, the Government have published no fewer than six detailed papers on the future of local government, as well as consultation documents on regional planning and regeneration. However, not one of them has been the subject of a statement in the House. As everyone has been consulted, should not the House also be consulted? Will the right hon. Lady arrange an extensive debate on this crucial issue?

Mrs. Taylor: Of course it is right for hon. Members to have an opportunity to feed in their ideas as part of the consultation process. It is open to any hon. Member to approach my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has done that.
A number of documents are out for consultation. They are interrelated, and it is up to any hon. Member who wishes to feed in ideas to write to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will my right hon. Friend pass my warmest congratulations to the Lord Chancellor—who has been getting a bad press recently—and to the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department? Earlier this week, they decided to publish in the Official Report the earnings from legal aid of some Queen's counsel who can earn up to £200,000 a year from the public purse. Given that tomorrow, in the House of Lords, another intake of 50 Queen's counsel will be sworn in, wearing their breeches and silver-buckle shoes, is there not a case for an early debate on the legal profession generally? That would allow Labour Members and, indeed, Opposition Members to express their concerns.

Mrs. Taylor: We have had debates on legal aid recently. I will of course pass on my hon. Friend's congratulations to the Ministers involved, but those congratulations may be slightly muted, because this is not the first occasion on which such information has been made available; the previous Government made it available.

Mr. Tony Baldry: I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree that one of the most important

decisions that the House and the country will have to take concerns our whole approach to economic and monetary union. Is it not a scandal that the House will have only two hours in which to debate that issue this afternoon?
Does the right hon. Lady agree that the hallmark of this Government is contempt for Parliament? This is not a parliamentary debate; it is a parliamentary soundbite. It is hardly surprising that the BBC is reducing its coverage of Parliament, when the Leader of the House and the Labour Government treat this place like a senate of Lilliput.

Mrs. Taylor: I have already answered that question. All that the hon. Gentleman has done is diminish the time for the debate even further.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on animal welfare, following the RSPCA's recent report on the appalling increase in the number of animal cruelty cases? Many of those cases have occurred in my county of Nottinghamshire, which is one of the worst counties in the central region in that regard. The debate is made even more necessary by the failure of the Breeding and Sale of Dogs Bill, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), which was blocked by an Opposition Member last Friday.

Mrs. Taylor: I know that there is concern about the blocking of private Members' Bills and the anonymous way in which it can be done. We support effective animal welfare legislation, and the courts have the power to take action against people who ill treat animals. The RSPCA report is extremely timely and I am glad that my hon. Friend has brought it to our attention, but I cannot promise him a debate in the near future.

Mr. Phil Willis: I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 1275.
[That this House notes with great concern the comments of the Chief Inspector of Schools who in a speech to the right wing think-tank Politeia claimed there was no evidence that schools are underfunded and further claimed that teachers were wasting too much time in meaningless activities; believes that local education authorities require significantly increased levels of capital and revenue resources to address the funding crisis in United Kingdom schools; and further believes that the Government should censure the Chief Inspector of Schools and ask him to consider his position.]
In view of the extraordinary statement by the chief inspector of schools, who said that our schools did not need any more money, but seemed only to need better management—a claim which was supported by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment—will the right hon. Lady confirm that it is now Government policy that our schools do not need any more money? In that case, will the Secretary of State come to the House and make a statement?

Mrs. Taylor: The comments of the chief inspector show that he does support the Government's strategy for raising standards in schools. He said that we were on the right track in increasing capital funding for schools and developing a fairer system of distribution. However,


he did make the point that the quality of teaching is paramount and we would all agree with that if every child is to be able to get a first-class education.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on Canada? One of my reasons for asking is that I noticed in the Daily Mail last Friday that the Conservative party was considering changing its name to the Progressives. Its counterpart in Canada is the Progressive Conservative party and, bearing it in mind that in the last election in Canada that party was reduced to holding three seats, might not such a debate help the Conservatives here in their deliberations?

Mrs. Taylor: I understand my hon. Friend's excellent suggestion, but I cannot find time for such a debate, especially next week.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on local government and local government funding, to give the Deputy Prime Minister an opportunity to come to the House to apologise to those who live in the Preston part of my constituency? Some of those people have had their wages increase by 2.5 per cent. and others have had their real wages decrease this year; at the same time, the council taxes imposed by the local authorities, both of which are Labour controlled, have gone up by 14 per cent. at a time when they are cutting back on services and threatening to take away concessionary bus passes from 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education. Is not that a scandal and will not a full day's debate on the issues allow such scandals to be exposed?

Mrs. Taylor: That gives me the opportunity to remind the House that Labour councils charge the lowest council tax averaged by council. The average council tax in Labour authorities is £590, in Tory authorities it is £626 and under the Liberal Democrats it is higher still. It would be tempting to hold such a debate, but we have debated those matters in the past and I cannot find time to debate them again in the near future.

Mr. Keith Simpson: Many hon. Members will find it amazing that the right hon. Lady manages to give the impression that our being here asking her questions somehow damages a debate on EMU. That destroys the whole process of parliamentary democracy.
May I reinforce the urging of my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House that we should have a debate on foreign policy as soon as possible? Not only are we waiting for a statement in the next two or three months on the strategic defence review, which is supposed to be foreign policy led, although we have no idea what the foreign policy baseline is, but we have been promised a debate on NATO enlargement, which is an issue of fundamental importance to the security of this country. May I urge the Leader of the House to ensure that the

Foreign Secretary is able to come and give us a view on British foreign policy, instead of the bits and pieces we have heard over the past year?

Mrs. Taylor: I have already answered a question about foreign policy; I acknowledged it, but said that there cannot be a debate in the near future. On other occasions, I have said that we need to look at the issue of NATO enlargement. I am beginning to wonder whether Conservative Members want to discuss EMU today, or whether they all want to repeat the same questions in order to avoid that debate.

Mr. John Bercow: Given that the Prime Minister stated on 4 June 1997 that the criteria for monetary union should not be
fiddled or botched in any way"—[Official Report, 4 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 386.],
will the right hon. Lady find time for the Prime Minister to make a statement next week to explain why he has changed his mind? Why does he now believe that, to join the single currency, Britain should have to satisfy the Maastricht convergence criteria, but that other countries, which do not qualify, can fiddle, fudge and botch while he stands idly and impotently by?

Mrs. Taylor: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman is wasting time in asking that we should have next week the debate that we shall move on to in a few minutes.

Mr. Adrian Sanders: You are no doubt aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker—as all hon. Members should be—that bits of this country disappear into the sea every year as a result of coastal erosion. That is becoming the problem of the millennium, as local authorities, which have the job of protecting our coastline, find that there are not sufficient grants to do so. The Bellwin formula is the appropriate funding mechanism, but it makes funds available only for emergencies, such as the recent floods in the midlands, not for the on-going daily problems of coastal erosion. I have applied for an Adjournment debate many times, but does the right hon. Lady consider the matter sufficiently important to make time available for a full debate on the problems of coastal erosion throughout the United Kingdom?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue which obviously concerns him. I am sorry that he has not been successful in securing an Adjournment debate. There are far more applications for Adjournment debates than Madam Speaker can grant, but I encourage him to keep on trying. In the meantime, I remind him that Department of the Environment Question Time is next Tuesday.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the right hon. Lady find time in the near future for a debate on the serious allegations about financial impropriety at the centre for the unemployed and in local government in Kettering? To assist such a debate, will she make public the findings of the inquiry into those allegations by the Labour party national executive committee?

Mrs. Taylor: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Orders of the Day — Economic and Monetary Union

[Relevant documents: European Community Document No. 7424/97, and the Explanatory Memorandum on that document submitted by HM Treasury on 30th May 1997, on the Annual Report of the European Monetary Institute for 1996; Fifth Report from the Treasury Committee on the UK and Preparations for Stage Three of Economic and Monetary Union (HC 503-I, II and 111).]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): We must now move on to the main business of the day—the motion on economic and monetary union. I have to announce that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I must also announce that the 10-minutes rule will apply throughout the debate.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7161/98 and 7188/98 consisting of reports from the European Monetary Institute and European Commission in accordance with Article 109j of the Treaty.
Tomorrow, under the United Kingdom's chairmanship, European Finance Ministers will meet to complete their recommendations on monetary union. After the introduction of monetary union, the euro area will account for about 20 per cent. of the world's output—about the same as the United States. It will be one of the world's largest importers and exporters. It will take nearly 50 per cent. of British exports, absorb more than 40 per cent. of British overseas direct investment and contribute more than 30 per cent. of foreign investment in the United Kingdom. British jobs and growth, therefore, depend on Britain and the euro countries working well together—and that, in Britain's interest, we shall seek to achieve.
This debate, on the eve of the decision-making meetings, allows me to bring the House up to date on the reports on economic and monetary union from the European Monetary Institute and from the European Commission, and on the timetable that follows. It allows me to inform the House of the decisions that member states propose to take, and of the new declaration on budget discipline, economic reform and employment that will be issued by Finance Ministers this weekend. It also gives me the opportunity to state the Government's position on all these matters.
I shall first explain the timetable that is being followed. Tomorrow night, the Economic and Finance Council will make its recommendation to Heads of Government on which member states fulfil the necessary conditions to join the single currency. On Saturday, the European Parliament will meet to consider the Council's recommendations. Heads of Government will then confirm which member states fulfil the necessary conditions—they will do so on the basis of a qualified majority vote. In the evening, a special meeting of Finance Ministers, with the central bank governors, will meet again and announce bilateral conversion rates for those currencies entering economic and monetary union.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: I shall make some progress, and then let the hon. Gentleman intervene.
Those decisions will mean that, when markets open on 1 January, exchange rates between joining currencies and the euro will be fixed. I remind the House that all those procedures were agreed in the Maastricht treaty, which was negotiated by the Government of which the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and his Conservative colleagues were part. Whatever the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House, as so much of our trade will be in the euro area, it is in Britain's interests—and in British business interests—that the euro countries and Britain work together in future. That is why we have sought, under Britain's presidency of the Union, to ensure that the procedures are as orderly and smooth as possible.

Mr. William Cash: In a reply that the Prime Minister gave me yesterday, he clearly said that 1 should refer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer questions relating to political union that arise from EMU. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Government believe that there are no constitutional implications or bar to economic and monetary union?

Mr. Brown: Every time the hon. Gentleman speaks, I have to thank him for his assistance—without his work, we would not have done so well at the general election. He should refer to the statement that I made to the House in October, when I set out both the constitutional issues and the economic arguments for joining.

Mr. Cash: No you did not.

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman would listen, he would perhaps learn something—he certainly has not been listening for the past few months. I told the House in October that, of course, the single currency raised constitutional issues and that, in any case when such decisions are made, there is a pooling of sovereignty. I also said, however, that we believed that the economic benefits of joining could outweigh those constitutional issues. I pointed out that the economic advantages of joining included the removal in the euro area of the cost of currency transactions, a reduction in speculation and a reduction, over time, in long-term interest rates as the single market worked more effectively.
The question that the Conservative party still has not answered is this: if the economic benefits of joining are proven, why do so many Conservative Members insist on our refusing to join even when joining is in the national economic interest?
As president of ECOFIN, we have now assembled the responses of member states to the two reports on EMU from the EMI and the Commission, as well as the response to the Commission's recommendations. On 27 March, the German Government stated their support for the recommendations, and last week they were supported by all the main political parties in both their Houses of Parliament. On 22 April, the French National Assembly approved by a substantial majority the French Government's position to support the Commission's recommendations on the 11. In turn, in recent weeks, Italy; the Netherlands, which had previously expressed some doubts about individual candidates; on 7 April, Ireland; then Belgium, Austria and Luxembourg, whose Parliament was unanimous, supported an EMU of the 11 recommended countries. Yesterday, the Finnish


Government confirmed their support. No member state, whatever the colour of its Government, has adopted a negative attitude to the Commission's recommendations.

Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to the Chancellor for giving way, as he said he would. Is he aware that the Bundesbank board is meeting today to decide whether to make public its concerns about the expansion of the single currency? It is concerned that countries such as Belgium and Italy will fudge issues because of the state of their public finances. Has the board now met, and what was its public statement on the single currency?

Mr. Brown: The Bundesbank board met on 26 March, and it said:
As the EMI report shows, far-reaching convergence has been achieved in the European Union concerning the price criterion at a gratifyingly low level … Considerable progress has been achieve towards convergence during the past few years … Bearing in mind the progress in convergence which has been achieved in many member states, and after giving due consideration to the remaining problems and risks, entry into monetary union from 1999 appears justifiable in stability policy terms.
I confirm that that was the opinion on 26 March. I do not believe that Mr. Hans Tietmeyer has changed his opinion over the course of a month.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: I will give way once more, but it appears that I am giving information to
Conservative Members that they should have found out for themselves.

Mr. Gill: These are serious matters, and some fateful decisions will be made this weekend. It is important to make those decisions on the basis of correct information. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, for example, that the statistics on Italy produced by the International Monetary Fund qualify the accounts by saying that the data include the underground economy? Were the data not to include the underground economy—fraud and criminal activity—the public debt to gross domestic product ratio would be nearer 157 per cent. than the 121 per cent. on which we are currently working.

Mr. Brown: The Conservative party said that this weekend would never happen. Then it said that no country would ever reach the borrowing requirement figures. Then it said that it expected all sorts of countries to fall by the wayside. Now it says that Italy should not go ahead because it has a black economy—as do many other countries around the world. Measures are being taken in Italy and elsewhere to deal with that.
The hon. Gentleman would never have predicted what Italy has achieved in its inflation, in lowering public borrowing, in long-term interest rates and in long-term rate stability. Instead of raising one issue—the black economy—the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that Italy has made substantial progress over recent years.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Brown: I will give way once more, but then I must make progress.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: During the past year, the right hon. Gentleman has made much of the state of

Britain's public finances. As the position in Italy and Belgium is more than twice as bad as that in Britain, about which he constantly complains, how can he possibly think that Italy and Belgium will be suitable members of a single currency?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to make an important point. When we came to power, last year's borrowing deficit was £23 billion. The Italian deficit this year is set to be 2.5 per cent. There is a legal requirement—(Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked about public borrowing and I am answering. In Italy, the deficit is 2.5 per cent. this year. Mr. Prodi, the Italian Prime Minister, has set a legal requirement for it to be 2 per cent. next year. On the debt:GDP ratio, the issue is not simply the level, but the direction—[Interruption.] Surely Conservative Members want accuracy on this matter. The treaty shows that it is a matter not only of the debt:GDP ratio but of the direction in which it is moving—

Mr. Blunt: Is it going down?

Mr. Brown: It is going down. It is set to fall by 4 per cent. over the next year. It has fallen over the past three years. Conservative Members should admit that I have the figures that they do not have.

Mr. Peter Lilley: rose—

Mr. Brown: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he will clarify the Conservative party's position on this matter. Is it still the position that the Conservative party would not join a single currency for two Parliaments or for 10 years?

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way; I will answer his question later.

Mr. Brown: Why not now?

Mr. Lilley: Because I am asking a question. The right hon. Gentleman surely realises that I will be called to speak later, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that the treaty requires the Council of Ministers to make a judgment on whether Italy and other countries are approaching at a satisfactory pace the 60 per cent. reference level for debt. I want to know the Government's view on how many years those countries should be allowed to reach that 60 per cent. reference level. What would be considered satisfactory?

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman would not answer my question. It is about time that he clarified, for the country, the Conservative party's position. It has been clearly stated that the Conservative party wants to hold back monetary union for two Parliaments or 10 years.
As regards Italy, the right hon. Gentleman correctly pointed out that the treaty refers not only to the debt:GDP ratio at a particular point in time but to the sustainability of fiscal criteria and therefore the direction in which that ratio is moving. The Italian debt:GDP ratio has been falling for the past three years—contrary to what the


hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) suggested. It will fall again next year. The Italian Government have made a commitment that, over the next three years, it will fall by 12 per cent. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden should take into account first, that Italian inflation is 1.8 per cent.; secondly, that public borrowing is 2.5 per cent.; thirdly, that Italy has met the necessary long-term interest rate criteria; fourthly, that Italy has met the exchange rate criteria; and, fifthly, that not only has Italy made a commitment significantly to reduce its debt:GDP ratio but, as I shall explain in a minute, Saturday's declaration of Ministers will lock countries into a course of fiscal rectitude that is absolutely essential for the future.
I will not take lectures from the Conservative party about fiddling the criteria. When we came to office, we found that the public spending figures had assumed a spend-to-save programme of billions of pounds of savings that did not exist. They had assumed privatisation sales that could never have happened because they had never been planned. They had assumed a trend growth rate that had not been reached over the cycle. The Conservative Government had continually changed the criteria on which they would judge themselves for fiscal rectitude—from a balanced budget to a near-to-balanced budget. We will take no lectures on fiscal rectitude from Conservative Members.

Mr. Lilley: rose—

Mr. Brown: As I was saying—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way.") I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he will answer my question. The country has a right to know whether it is still the Conservative party's position that it will not join a single currency for two Parliaments or 10 years. It is a very simple question requiring a very simple answer.

Mr. Lilley: I am afraid that I did not quite catch the Chancellor's answer to my question. He has to make a legally important decision tomorrow night on whether or not to lift the existing excess deficit procedure from Italy. He can do that only by making a judgment on how many years Italy should be allowed to fulfil the requirement that it should return to the 60 per cent. reference level in a satisfactory time. He must tell the House how many years he would consider satisfactory.

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman presents himself as some sort of lawyer interpreting—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Chancellor, but this is a serious debate which is not helped by barracking and shouting. It would be better conducted in a quieter mood.

Mr. Brown: It is not a requirement of the treaty to reach a particular level within a particular time. The requirement is that, if the debt:GDP ratio is not met at a particular point in time, the direction in which it is moving must be satisfactory.

Mr. Lilley: And the pace.

Mr. Brown: Yes, and the pace.
I have said that the Italian debt:GDP ratio has fallen for the last three years and it is falling now. It will fall again over the next few years. Conservative Members have tried to find some issue that might unite them on European policy. They criticise the Italians, but they should take a more sensible view and look at Italy's achievements on inflation, interest rates and the debt:GDP ratio. They should recognise that, under the Italian plan for next year, public borrowing will be far lower as a percentage of national income than was the case when we came to office in Britain and inherited a Conservative borrowing requirement of £23 billion.
We already know that, on Friday, member states intend to vote for monetary union to proceed.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Brown: I will not give way again.
It is clear that member states intend to support the Commission's recommendations. Therefore, there will be 11 members of the new currency union. I should remind the House—Conservative Members might like to bear it in mind—that the vote will be taken on a qualified majority basis. The Maastricht treaty, negotiated by the previous Government, did not allow for a veto.
I shall deal now with the Government's position on those matters—[Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, Conservative Members seem to be very exercised by these issues. They should perhaps reflect on the fact that we are debating events over the next few days that will significantly affect Europe, and that their behaviour in this debate will be commented on across Europe. Nevertheless, they cannot bring themselves to admit that—despite all they said about countries that would never meet the terms on public borrowing, inflation and interest rates—those terms have been achieved by all the applying member states.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: I will not give way again.
As for the Government's position, I should say immediately that—because of the importance that we attach to discipline, stability and economic reforms as preconditions for the high levels of growth and employment that Europe needs—we will work this weekend with our colleagues towards a new declaration, to be agreed by all Finance Ministers.
First, the declaration will not only re-emphasise the importance of fiscal discipline in the stability and growth pact—with its deficit requirements, penalties and multilateral surveillance—but will reinforce it with a new declaration that will advance implementation of the stability pact in the all-important transition stages to economic and monetary union, helping to lock in the achievements of recent years and to build on them for the future.
Secondly, this weekend's declaration will also go beyond the stability and growth pact, to emphasise the need for economic reform. As a result of a British initiative at York, economic reform is now established as the next big challenge facing Europe—including product market reform through effective competition policies, and vigorous pursuit of completion of the single market; capital market reform through measures to improve the


flow of investment funds to business—not least our proposals for reforming the venture capital industry; and labour market reform, including our proposals for employability and greater adaptability.
After the European Monetary Institute's report, which stated that structural policies were necessary in most countries, a new commitment to economic reform measures—to help the European economy work better, and to help economic and monetary union work more successfully—will be included in the new declaration.
Thirdly, the declaration that we will sign this weekend will reflect the importance that we attach to addressing the problem of unemployment if we are to make monetary union work more successfully. The declaration will therefore emphasise just how important it is to tackle unemployment not only by tax, social security and welfare reform but by measures for education and training, and the importance of ending social exclusion if we are to have both a successful single currency and a successful economy.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: I will not give way.
With the declaration, we are satisfied that we are making new and further progress in budget discipline and debt reduction, thus locking in greater stability; in employment, and therefore in the better functioning of the economies; and in economic reform.
The new declaration will form the background to the decisions we take tomorrow and on Saturday. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome the fact that that is happening.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: I will not give way again.
I shall deal now with the detailed reports of the European Monetary Institute and the European Commission assessing the convergence criteria not only over one year but over a period of years. The reports have been laid before the House, with a detailed explanatory memorandum.
The European Monetary Institute report—which has been signed by all the central bank governors, including the Governor of the Bank of England—states that
The individual criteria are interpreted and applied in a strict manner"
and concludes that
"major improvements in terms of convergence have been seen in the Union."
The report also states that
Overall progress in reducing fiscal deficits and debt ratios has generally accelerated",
and notes the substantial progress that has been made to reduce inflation.
In highlighting that progress, the Commission's report concludes and recommends that 11 member states have a sufficient degree of sustainable convergence to qualify them to join the single currency on 1 January 1999.
The reports have to assess the progress made by member states on two matters. The first is legal convergence: whether national legislation, including the

statutes of national central banks, is compatible with the treaty's legal obligations and the statute of the European system of central banks.
As the EMI report makes it clear, all candidates for economic and monetary union have made the changes—or are in advanced stages of introducing them, and therefore will have met them by the required date of 1 July—necessary to ensure that national legislation is thus compatible with the treaty and with the statute of the European system of central banks.
The second assessment is on economic convergence—on whether applying states have achieved a high degree of sustainable convergence by reference to the treaty's four criteria, which are achievement of a high degree of price stability, exchange rate stability, convergence of long-term interest rates and sustainability of the financial position.
On inflation, all candidates for the single currency had inflation below the reference value of 2.7 per cent. The European Monetary Institute concludes that all those countries' inflation performance has been consistent with price stability—which I hope Conservative Members will welcome—reflecting reductions in inflation achieved over a number of years. Average European Union inflation has thus fallen from almost 6 per cent., in 1991, to just over 2 per cent. last year.
On exchange rates, all the candidates have achieved a high degree of exchange rate stability, which has in recent years been supported by reductions in inflation and in fiscal deficits.
On long-term interest rates, all the candidates had interest rates below the reference value for the required period.
The final treaty criterion is sustainability of public finances. As both the Commission and the EMI reports demonstrate, European countries have already made considerable progress in controlling their budget deficits. The average deficit has been reduced from a peak of more than 6 per cent. of national income, in 1993, to 2.4 per cent. last year.
On sustainability of the fiscal position, I repeat that those countries with high debt ratios have already taken substantial action in recent years to reduce deficits. Those countries have primary surpluses, which means that their debts have been and continue to be on a downward path. They have now made significant commitments to reducing deficits further, thus keeping debt on a downward trend. One purpose of this weekend's declaration, which I have described to the House, is to ensure that those trends are maintained and locked in.
The EMI report confirms that the United Kingdom is itself on course to comply with the medium-term objectives of the stability and growth pact, and notes that our fiscal position on deficits and on debt meets the Maastricht criteria.

Mr. Tyrie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: As I have already said, I will not give way.
Taking into account the progress that has been made towards economic convergence on the basis of the treaty criteria, the framework for fiscal discipline provided by the stability and growth pact, the special commitments that have now been made by high-debt countries to reduce their


debt ratios, and the new declaration to be issued this weekend—which will affirm commitments to fiscal discipline, economic reform and employment—the Government will endorse the recommendation that 11 countries should join the single currency on 1 January 1999.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Brown: I shall give way once more, to the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Ian Taylor: The Opposition's concern about whether the 11 countries forming the first group have met the criteria is based largely on our desire to ensure that the single currency is a success. Given that we will not be part of the Euro X committee, and the fact that the Chancellor—although he will be president this weekend—will not subsequently have the same influence, how will we be able, in the British national interest, to maintain our influence on the operation of the currency in future, to ensure that it is successful? Its success is so important not only to the European economy but to the British economy.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who had the courage to stay with the policy pursued by the Conservatives in the previous Parliament. He resigned from the Opposition Front Bench when he realised that that policy was changing because of a leadership change. He suggested that we will have a loss of influence because we do not belong to the Euro X committee, but the United Kingdom will be present in all Euro X committee meetings dealing with matters affecting all 15 European Union countries. We secured that agreement at Luxembourg, and that agreement will be followed through. I hope that I have been able to reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point. It is vital that we make the necessary preparations outlined in our statement in October.
I want to reaffirm to the House Britain's position on economic and monetary union. The Government are committed to the principle of joining the single currency, making a proper and balanced assessment of the economic benefits of joining, judging—as our economic tests do—not just the advantages and disadvantages of being in, but the costs and benefits of staying out and making the necessary preparation to join.
It is the Government's judgment that, after a period of preparation, which should also be a period of stability without endless destabilising speculation, we should be in a position to make a decision early in the next Parliament and, if we were to recommend it, the British people would make the final decision in a referendum.
That was the position that we set out in October and we will not be diverted from it, either by those who want to join early, regardless of the economic interest, or by those who never want to join even if it proves to be in the national economic interest to do so.
We reject the Opposition's view that we should not enter a single currency for 10 years or two Parliaments. I am pleased to see that the shadow Chancellor does not feel it necessary to deny that.
In or out of the euro, preparing for its introduction is of vital importance and we shall be prepared. The Government are working closely with all business to ensure that when the euro arrives in Europe on 1 January 1999, British businesses benefit from it.
I can say today that, from 1999, businesses will be able to use the euro in the United Kingdom for a wide range of activities from filing company accounts to paying taxes and issuing shares. From 1999, the United Kingdom banking system will have the capability to process payments in Europe for local and national businesses as well as for the international financial market. The Bank of England is leading euro preparations in the City of London.
I am pleased that the Select Committee, to which I shall reply soon, supported the need for detailed and full preparations if we are to join and supported our proposal for a national changeover plan. We are committed to producing an outline of the national changeover plan in the coming year. Inside or outside the euro zone, British economic policies will continue being right for business and I am determined to ensure that Britain will be the best place in Europe from which to develop new business opportunities after 1999.
The Government's constructive approach to Europe has brought to an end years of British isolation in Europe and years of ideological division at home over Europe during which Britain lacked either a consensus on Europe or a clear national economic purpose. Our position, which is right for business and supported by business, is the best for jobs and growth. It is best for Britain now and in the future and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Peter Lilley: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, at end add:
'but regrets the Government's failure to deliver on the Prime Minister's pledge to the House on 4th June 1997 that "the criteria for monetary union should not be fiddled, fudged or botched in any way", and also the Government's failure during the British Presidency of the European Union to press for a strict interpretation of the Treaty requirements governing the eligibility of member states to join a single European currency, with consequential damage to British manufacturing industry through the perceived weakness of the euro and the resulting strength of sterling.'.
This weekend, European Governments will be making decisions that will have momentous consequences for the countries that may join the euro and for the United Kingdom. I shall make a case which I shall state very succinctly at the outset. First, I shall argue that
it would clearly be in the UK's interests, even if it does not join, to ensure that the choice of participants and any compromise reached on the Presidency of the European Central Bank are credible and consistent with the treaty's requirements".
Those are the words of the Select Committee, and I whole-heartedly endorse them.
Secondly, I shall argue that
it is our duty, as President of the European Union, to ensure that the criteria are properly obeyed".

Mr. Gordon Brown: As the right hon. Gentleman is making statements of principle, will he clarify the position of the Conservative party on the single currency? Is it that it will not join for two Parliaments or 10 years? Will he


rescind the statement that he made yesterday to Mr. Naughtie on the "Today" programme that that has never been the Conservative party's position?

Mr. Lilley: The words that I just uttered were those of the Prime Minister, which is perhaps why the Chancellor wanted to avoid them. I agree with the Prime Minister that, during Britain's presidency, the Government should use their influence to ensure that the criteria are properly obeyed.

Mr. Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question?

Mr. Lilley: I shall answer the Chancellor's question in a moment.
Thirdly, I shall argue that the Bundesbank is right to say that
additional firm and substantive commitments
are needed to ensure that Italy and Belgium achieve sustainable convergence and that the Government should argue, negotiate and, if need be, vote to achieve that end.
The Chancellor wants to know our position on Europe. It is very clear. We believe that we should keep the pound in the next Parliament, because the structure and cycle of the British economy differ from those on the continent. Unless and until we have American-style labour mobility, wage flexibility and transfer of resources between states, a one-interest-rate-fits-all monetary policy would be damaging to Britain.

Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lilley: No. I am still answering the Chancellor's point.
The Treasury Select Committee concluded that, even if the circumstances were to change, it would take at least five years and probably a whole business cycle to determine that. Therefore, it would be absurd to try to pretend that the criteria laid down by the Chancellor could be met, and could be seen to have been met, before the end of the next Parliament. That is why we believe that it is right to keep the pound and that is the logic of the Chancellor's position.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the logic of the position that he has just explained is that, in the next 10 years, there are no circumstances or developments in the relationship between the euro and Britain under which the people of Britain might have the chance to express their judgment and assessment of the issues and weigh up the debate? He has said that there will be no circumstances in which the British people will be able to decide.

Mr. Lilley: If that is the hon. Gentleman's view of the logic of my position, he is, in effect, saying that it is the logic of the Treasury Select Committee and the Chancellor.

Mr. Gordon Brown: May we have a straight answer?

Mr. Lilley: The Chancellor has had a straight answer. He refused to give me a straight answer to my question.

Mr. Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the position of the Conservative party is not as he set out yesterday on the "Today" programme, when he said to Mr. Jim Naughtie:
10 years is a number picked from the air by you"?
Will he confirm that the real position is the one that he stated on 5 October and referred to two Parliaments or 10 years? Will he confirm that that is the true position of the Conservative party and will he apologise for getting it wrong yesterday?

Mr. Lilley: The two Parliaments, or essentially the next Parliament, is the commitment that we have made, for the reasons that I spelled out. That is a sensible policy. The right hon. Gentleman's own policy is incompatible—

Mr. Derek Twigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lilley: No. I must get on and address the issues involved in the debate.
There are very good reasons for countries that are not in the European currency to be concerned about the decisions that are being taken this weekend. Decisions about the terms on which members join the euro, who joins and who runs the European central bank are important for Europe and for Britain.

Mr. Twigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Lilley: No. I have not yet completed my point, so the hon. Gentleman does not know yet what it is.
A soft euro would push the pound even higher, hitting exporters even harder and driving manufacturing into recession. In the long run, an unstable euro—or worse still, a failed euro, would not just be a disaster for member countries; Britain too would be hit by the wash. There are very good reasons for being concerned about the euro even though Britain remains outside, as it will have indirect effects on us.
The Chancellor wants to bounce us into a single currency soon after the next election, if he gets the opportunity. A weak and unstable euro would then affect us directly, so he should be even more concerned than we are by the failure to apply the convergence criteria strictly. If he is serious about British entry into economic and monetary union, he is being quite extraordinarily irresponsible in taking such a relaxed view about the application of the criteria.

Mr. Gardiner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lilley: No. I should like to make some further progress.
Launching the euro is a bold and perilous venture. Virtually everyone has agreed that the less strictly the Maastricht convergence criteria are applied, the greater the risk that the venture will fail. Those criteria were included in the Maastricht treaty precisely to ensure that the euro would be strong and stable. The Government have repeatedly stated that they too believe that the criteria should be rigorously applied.
Last July, the Chancellor told the Royal Institute of International Affairs:
there should be no fudging of the Maastricht treaty conditions.
On that, at least, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister see eye to eye. The Prime Minister told the House:
the criteria for monetary union should not be fiddled, fudged or botched in any way. If they are, the answer is not to delay—the answer is not to proceed."—[Official Report, 4 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 386.]
Even the Foreign Secretary has taken time off from winning friends and influencing people around the world to weigh in against fudging. He said:
we have no intention of signing up if our final conclusion is that the criteria have been fudged."—[Official Report, 9 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 803.]
We have a right to expect that the Government mean what they say, but we now know that those words were for home consumption. Words may be cheap for the Chancellor, but he is playing fast and loose with British jobs and businesses. Hard-working people are paying the price of his broken pledges. On this most important issue he has let down the British people.

Mr. Gardiner: While the right hon. Gentleman is talking about cheap words, I remind him of his own words of 8 May 1997, when he said that he thought there was
no point in making theological decisions about subsequent Parliaments".
Does he recall those words and, almost a year to the day later, has he suddenly converted to a different way of theological thinking?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman should get his quotations first hand, not from Walworth road. He would then realise that I was asked about the Parliament after next. Of course it is sensible for us to have a view about the next general election; we will have to have such a view in our next manifesto. However, I did not think that it was worth while committing myself, theologically or otherwise, to a view about the election after next.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lilley: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman has already had one go.
Britain holds the presidency of the European Union. It is the Government's duty to ensure that the criteria are properly obeyed, yet they are doing nothing and have done nothing during the past four months. They have not uttered a single word of criticism about the Commission's recommendations that all 11 applicants now meet all the criteria.
The Commission and the European Monetary Institute reports show that only four of the 15 members of the European Community have passed all the tests and met the strict reference levels in the treaty. Two of those four are Denmark and Britain, which are not even applying to join the single currency. The report shows also that two member states—Belgium and Italy—had levels of debt twice as high as those permitted by the Maastricht treaty.
It shows that two countries, including Italy, have not been members of the exchange rate mechanism for the full two years required by the treaty.
The report shows also that some countries have needed temporary and spurious devices to get their deficits below the ceiling. The Bundesbank spelled out in its parallel report that
the deficit ratio of many member states in 1997 was influenced by measures with a temporary effect. These measures were on such a scale in Italy, for example, at 1 per cent. of GDP that they were instrumental in enabling it to meet the reference value of 3 per cent. of GDP.
It would be interesting to hear from the Chancellor whether he thinks that a strict application of the rules would allow Italy to get away with raising a euro-tax and promising to give back 70 per cent. of the proceeds in subsequent years without taking account of that in the figures that it presented to the Commission. We might all like taxes that would end after a few years, but that does not seem to me to be a very strict application of the rules.
The Government and the Chancellor have put forward a range of excuses for abandoning their pledge to insist on strict application of the criteria. Their first response was to deny that any real fudging is going on. The Chancellor claimed today that even countries such as Italy and Belgium come within the letter of the rules. There is a get-out clause for countries whose debt exceeds 60 per cent. of gross domestic product if, in the words of the treaty, the ratio is
approaching the reference value at a satisfactory pace.
Every country signed up to the 60 per cent. target in 1991—seven years ago. Since then, Italy's debt has not decreased; it has increased from 101 per cent. in 1991 to 122 per cent. In the three recent years, to which the Chancellor referred, in which it has declined from its peak, it has done so at an average rate of only 1 per cent. a year. At that rate, it will take six decades to reach the reference level. Is the Chancellor saying that approaching the reference level at a satisfactory pace means allowing Italy 60 years to do so?
The good news is that the Italian Government have promised the Commission that they will reduce the ratio in future at a rate of 3 per cent. a year. They will need to achieve that rate year in, year out, without fail, for the next 20 years to reach the 60 per cent. reference level. Does the Chancellor consider that Italy is approaching the reference level at a satisfactory pace?

Mr. Gordon Brown: Having said that Britain should not join monetary union, the shadow Chancellor now wants no other country to join. He is trying to construct a case for monetary union not to go ahead among 11 countries based on the debt to GDP ratio in Italy. I have pointed out to him—[Horn. MEMBERS: "What about Italy?"] Conservative Members should listen to these facts. First, inflation in Italy is 1.8 per cent., so it has met the criteria that many Conservative Members said that it would never meet. Secondly, long-term interest rates in Italy are now 5.2 per cent., so they have substantially decreased. Thirdly, the public sector borrowing requirement—the Government's financial position—is 2.5 per cent., and the Italian Prime Minister has promised me that it will fall to 2 per cent. Fourthly, the Maastricht


criterion was not that debt should be 60 per cent. of GDP, but that it should be 60 per cent. or satisfactorily diminishing.

Mr. Shaun Woodward: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a new Member of the House, may I ask whether the Chancellor's remarks constitute an intervention?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I advise the hon. Gentleman, as a new Member of the House, that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) should realise that, because the primary surplus in Italy is 6 per cent., there is a current account surplus and the savings ratio is 15 per cent., debt will not be accumulated over the next few years; it is falling by 3 per cent. a year. The Italian Prime Minister has said that debt will fall by 12 per cent. over the next three years.
Conservative Members should consider another point: the European Parliament today voted on the Commission's recommendations and the British Conservative group refused to support the shadow Chancellor's view.

Mr. Lilley: It is my understanding that the British Conservatives abstained. One always knows when the Chancellor is in trouble because he goes into auto-rant mode for so long that he hopes that people will have forgotten the issue that he was supposed to be addressing. He has revealed that he still does not have a view on how much time Italy should be allowed to return to the 60 per cent. level. I do not mind what his view is, but he is a member of the Government and he will have to make a decision on that matter tomorrow evening. He should tell the House his position. Twenty years seems a long time for Italy to fulfil that criterion. I know that the Chancellor claims to be a long-termist, but that is carrying long-termism to extremes.

Mr. Blunt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what distinguishes debt from inflation and the PSBR is that inflation and PSBR figures can change substantially from one year to the next, but it takes a long time to deal with a huge public sector debt?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and much more to the point than the Chancellor could ever be.
The Chancellor's next line of defence is to pretend that all the reports that have been published, including that of the European Monetary Institute—on Thursday, the Chancellor even claimed the same of the Bundesbank report—entirely endorse, without qualification, the entry into the euro of all 11 countries. That is not so. The EMI document is fundamentally factual and does not have to express a detailed affirmation of each country's overall standing.

Mr. Gordon Brown: I did not say that the report endorsed entry of all 11 countries.

Mr. Lilley: The Chancellor is backing off; he is saying that he did not say such a thing.

Mr. Brown: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Both right hon. Gentlemen must sit down if I am on my feet. If the

Chancellor is to make sedentary comments, he cannot necessarily count on them not being challenged by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). Is the shadow Chancellor giving way?

Mr. Lilley: No, I am not, for the simple reason that the Chancellor spoke for the equivalent of four interventions in his last one.
The European Monetary Institute expresses views on the sustainability of the debt position of each member state. This is what it says of Greece, which has been prevented from joining because it fails, among other things, the debt criteria. It has debt of 108 per cent. of its GDP. The report says:
Notwithstanding the efforts and the substantial progress made towards improving the current fiscal situation, there must be an ongoing concern as to whether the ratio of Government debt to GDP will"—
then it quotes the treaty—
'be sufficiently diminishing and approaching the reference value at a satisfactory pace,' and whether sustainability of the fiscal position has been achieved.
That is fair enough; that is a clear rejection of the Greek position. The report uses exactly the same words for Italy; exactly the same words describe the Italian situation. The Chancellor cannot claim that the report endorses the countries that he wishes to enter without further change and fail to acknowledge that the report condemns them in the terms that it condemns Greece.
The next line of defence to which the Government resort is to acknowledge that some of the criteria may have been fudged but to claim, as the Prime Minister did at the Dispatch Box the other day, that there is "a range of criteria", with the implication that it is all right to fail one or two as long as all the others are met. The European Monetary Institute does not accept that view. Its report says:
the convergence criteria constitute a coherent and integrated package and they must all be satisfied; the treaty lists the criteria on an equal footing and does not suggest a hierarchy".

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lilley: No, I will not.
The criteria are being loosely applied, particularly to Belgium and Italy. That will weaken the euro. The Chancellor can argue until he is blue in the face that that is not so, but the foreign exchange markets give him the lie. They do not agree with him. They believe that a fudged euro will be a soft euro, and the euro will be fudged. That is why they have devalued all 11 currencies that are set to join the euro against those that are staying outside it. If the Chancellor does not believe that that is the reason for the moves on the foreign exchange markets, he should explain to the House what is.

Mr. Bill Rammell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lilley: I am afraid that I do not have time to give way to the hon. Gentleman in view of Madam Speaker's request that we try not to go on too long.
The Government's final line of defence is to admit that there might be fudging but to say, "Well, we shouldn't do anything about it because we wouldn't achieve very much


and we would make ourselves unpopular." That is what the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box on 1 April. That is an abnegation of leadership; it is an admission that the Government have no influence.
Others in Europe have not been so spineless. The French Interior Minister, Jean-Pierre Chevenement, recently warned that a fudged euro would be like the Titanic
sailing full steam ahead towards the pack ice. By the time we see the iceberg, perhaps it will be too late.
That is from a member of a Government who are applying to join the institution.
The Bundesbank qualified its reluctant agreement to German membership with a warning that Belgium and Italy need to do more to meet the criteria. It said:
with regard to the requirement of a sustainable financial position, however, serious concern exists in the case of Belgium and Italy. This could be eliminated if additional, firm, substantive commitments are given.
Mr. Waigel, the German Finance Minister, has recently been touring European capitals, trying to persuade member states to sign up to a declaration committing themselves to accelerated debt reduction. The Chancellor revealed that that has finally come to fruition—although he has not put the matter before the House or respected the House by telling us what document he is to sign. Will he confirm that the document has been watered down in three successive drafts, no longer includes any timetable for Italy and Belgium to reduce their debt ratios and is not nearly as strong as the author himself would have liked?
The British Government hold the presidency. The British Government should be taking the lead in these matters, not leaving it to France and Germany. The British Government should have been seeking additional, firm, substantive commitments to a timetable of debt reduction. After all, this is the Government who told us that they would take the lead in Europe. This is the Government who told us that they had won influence by signing up to the social chapter and committing Britain to the euro in principle. The sad truth is that they have got nothing in return for those concessions.
As this week's edition of The Economist says:
Ecofin, the council of Finance Ministers, that the Chancellor chairs, has lately been the EU's most influential body. But Mr. Brown himself is one of its least influential members.
The Government have won no influence for their concessions. Apparently, according again to The Economist, the only concession that the Chancellor has got out of his French opposite number is a free ticket to the World cup.
Our Prime Minister claims that he is still taking the lead in Europe, but he does not tell his friends in Europe what he told the British people in his party's manifesto which was issued for the general election.

Mr. Derek Twigg: On that very point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lilley: I shall remind the hon. Gentleman that, in the manifesto on which the Prime Minister and he were elected, the Labour party said:
What is essential for the success of EMU is genuine convergence among the economies that take part, without any fudging of the rules.
Why is the Prime Minister not prepared to say the same thing to our partners in Europe? Apparently, despite his well-known linguistic skills, translating those words into French seems to have been beyond him. He yields to the views of his partners; he has found that he can only pretend to lead if he agrees to follow. His idea of leadership is the same as the Duke of Plaza Toro, who led his army from behind because he found it so much safer. In the end, Britain will gain influence in Europe only if we have the courage of our convictions, if we put forward a clear, coherent and consistent view. That may make us unpopular in the short term, but it will win us respect in the longer run.
Almost as important as the convergence criteria is the decision on who should be president of the European central bank. It was rather extraordinary that the Chancellor did not address that today. Unlike our Prime Minister, the French leader has no qualms about being isolated in Europe. The French do not mind being awkward and making themselves unpopular in the pursuit of French objectives. Although all the other member states agreed that Mr. Duisenberg should be president of the European central bank, the French have insisted on reopening the question. They have dug their heels in and demanded that their candidate, Mr. Trichet, should at least share the eight-year term with Mr. Duisenberg. But the Maastricht treaty is quite unambiguous; the chairman's term is set at eight years. That is to give him the necessary independence. To split the term in two would betray the intentions of that treaty.
To follow a political fudge on membership criteria with another political fudge on how the bank is run would further undermine confidence in the euro. As president of the EU, the British Government should have ensured that the issue was resolved before now. Above all, they must now prevent a damaging compromise from occurring which betrays the treaty.
The Government's failure to take a firm stand on these issues has done great damage. It has undermined confidence in the 11 countries set to join the euro, devaluing their currencies against the pound—which has contributed to the artificial over-valuation of the pound, which has undermined our exports and pushed manufacturing further into recession. The Government may deny that this is happening, but I was in the midlands yesterday, speaking to business men. They had no doubts that manufacturing is already in recession. That may not concern the Government, who do not care a fig about business and jobs, but manufacturers know that the high pound is a key factor. The bottom line is that more and more jobs will be lost in manufacturing as the months go by.
Those business men and their employees will want to know why the Government are doing nothing to tackle the problem. What is at stake is not just the economic damage in the short term, or even the dangers of an unstable euro in the long run; it is the integrity of the treaty. It is crucial that treaties, once signed, are adhered to—that member states adhere to the spirit, as well as to


the letter, of the law. This country will rue the day it ever allows political expediency to override clear treaty commitments.
At the end of the day, it was probably never realistic to expect the Government to take a stand against fudging. After all, the Government are based on fudge. They try to be all things to all people. They pretend that they can stick to our spending limits, yet still spend more on everything. They promise not to raise taxes, and then sneak them in by stealth. They said that they were in favour of joining the euro in principle, but then ruled it out for this Parliament in practice. Above all, they cannot oppose fudging the Maastricht test because they want to fudge their own tests later. That is why I ask the House to support our amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that the 10-minutes rule will now apply, and that constraint within that will be for the consideration of other hon. Members.

Mr. Giles Radice: I shall be speaking primarily as the Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, which published a report "The UK and Preparations for Stage Three of Economic and Monetary Union", but I have my own views as chairman of another group, the European Movement. The Select Committee has differing views represented on it, from supporters of early entry, such as myself, to those in implacable opposition such as the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
On the Select Committee, there is a substantial majority in favour of British membership of EMU but there is a significant minority against. Therefore, in the report there is no discussion of the pros and cons of entry; otherwise, we would have merely produced a majority-minority report. There is no discussion of timing; contrary to the speculative accounts which appeared before the report was published, and contrary to what the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) has just said. I advise the right hon. Gentleman to actually read the report.
The context of our report is that a big decision will be made this weekend on participation, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said. Bilateral conversion rates will be decided and the president of the European central bank selected, which makes it the virtual start of the third stage of the single currency—although it formally begins on 1 January. I agree with my right hon. Friend that substantial progress has been made in achieving the Maastricht criteria by all those who want to participate, as the Governor of the Bank of England told us. That confounds what the pundits said 15 months ago.
The figures are now very good. Average inflation across the EU is 1.6 per cent. Average long-term rates are 6.1 per cent. The average budget deficit is 2.4 per cent. This is enormous progress, about which we heard nothing from the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden. Of course there are weaknesses also, such as debt.

Sir Teddy Taylor: What about unemployment?

Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman will have to make his own speech.
The deficit improvement will have to be sustained. Even so, overall progress has been so impressive that it is not surprising that the Commission will be recommending that the 11 members go ahead with the third stage. This weekend, the Heads of Government will almost certainly agree unanimously—in my view, they are right—that the 11 members should go ahead. The United Kingdom should support that decision—we are, after all, in the role of chair. As a non-participating member, it is inconceivable that we should stop a unanimous view by all other member states. Only non-serious politicians in opposition would suggest otherwise.
Whether in or out, the euro will have a significant impact on our economy, and we note that. In the report, the best section is the part on preparation. There is strong support for the Government's policy on preparing the UK to deal with the coming of the euro, even while we are staying out. There is likely to be widespread use of the euro, not just in the City and the wholesale financial markets but in business as a whole—especially in the trading sector.
Pilkington told us that it was converting its systems to use the euro because it will help eliminate differences in production costs. ICI told us that euro-liquidity will spread throughout the economy. Siemens told us that the euro would come through the back door. Siemens and British Steel said that they were anxious for UK suppliers to use the euro. Sainsbury and Marks and Spencer will accept euros from 2002. Substantial change will come about, and we ought to realise that. In the report, we backed the idea of a national changeover plan from sterling to euros so that we can proceed more quickly and efficiently once the decision is taken for the UK to join. It would be a guide for businesses now if they knew what was likely to happen later.
I move now to the Chancellor's five economic tests. We have qualified already on all the main Maastricht convergence criteria; except the one on the exchange rate, because we have not joined the exchange rate. In his historic statement last October, the Chancellor announced some useful additional criteria for judging if and when Britain should join. He mentioned, in particular, sustainable convergence and flexibility, which the Committee agreed were very important. We should take them into account if Britain is to derive maximum benefit from membership. However, tests are only guides. When we decide to enter, a broader assessment will be required. In particular, we will need a comparative analysis of the costs and benefits not only of participation, but of staying out. That includes political, as well as economic, costs and benefits.
The UK's decision will be made on the basis of a political and economic assessment of the balance of national advantage, which will include the Chancellor's five important tests. However, it will be broader than that. One sentence of the report has been wrenched out of context. We said that it will not be possible
to judge clearly and unambiguously either the success of EMU or answers to all of the Chancellor's five tests for at least five years. It will remain the case that the UK's decision will have to be made on political and economic assessment of the balance of national advantage.
It is always better to read the sentence after the one that has been quoted.
In a sense, we are stating the obvious. In hindsight, it might have been more helpful if we had used the words "for some time" rather than the words "five years",


although five years from this weekend, which is virtually the start of a single currency, is compatible with the Government's intention to be in a position to join early in the next Parliament. We did not make a judgment about the time of entry; we specifically decided not to take in the issues of principle, otherwise most of us would have said, "We want to join early," and the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East would have written a minority report saying that he would never want to join. We did not say that, but we are saying that there are no scientific certainties, either about the success of EMU or about the Chancellor's five tests.
Our position will have to be taken on a broad judgment about political and economic advantage for this country. It is my view and the view of many members of the Committee that we shall have to go in sooner rather than later, perhaps sooner than under the Government's current timetable. I predict that, from this weekend, events will move much faster than most people think, and certainly faster than the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden thinks.
Pressures for us to join will build up, especially from business and particularly from those involved in finance and trade, which will increasingly deal in euros. There will be a big incentive to go the whole hog. Exchange rate instability for the pound may arise from the euro, which will be a handicap for British business and for the economy, and British business may miss the opportunities of a single market backed by a single currency.
Last but not least are the political consequences of exclusion from EMU and the Euro X problem. The Labour Government have made a good start on their European policy and I agree with their ambition to play a leadership role in Europe, but that will be more difficult if we exclude ourselves, at least for the time being, from Europe's most important project, which will inevitably develop. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who described economic and monetary union as the most positive political and economic development this century.
There will be a broad national and economic interest for us to join as soon as we possibly can. The Government should speed up preparations to join, including informing the British public about EMU and the advantages of joining sooner rather than later. The British people will decide on this momentous question, but we as politicians would fail in our duty if, by putting off the decision for too long, we disadvantaged our citizens and our country.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Taylor.

Sir Teddy Taylor: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I called Mr. Ian Taylor.

Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and I are almost identical, not only in our surnames. Therefore, there was a natural misunderstanding.
This is a brief, but crucial debate. I shall make a few remarks, and I hope that I do not repeat those made by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice), the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, with which I broadly agree.
I can endorse the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), the shadow Chancellor, because, going into this weekend, it is vital that we understand the tensions for those countries that have not absolutely met the Maastricht convergence criteria, which are extremely sound Conservative economic principles that were rightly written into the Maastricht treaty. It is important to understand why such countries might not have conformed absolutely with the criteria, not to frustrate the whole exercise—I am sure that Conservative Members do not want to do that—but to ensure that the venture is a success.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, who said recently on the "Today" programme that it is not in the British national interest for the euro to fail. I would go further, and say that it is in the British national interest for it to succeed. If it were to succeed, it is logically in the British national interest that we join. If it is the British national interest that we join, we should join—the sooner the better.
The Chancellor could and should make the situation clearer from the British point of view. If he had clarified the timetable and made more precise the plan which would have enabled this country to meet not only the absolute convergence criteria, but the running together of economic cycles, his Budget statement would have given a signal to the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee, which would probably have taken off the pound some of the pressure that it has been under since he sat down at the end of his Budget statement. Such clarification would also have suggested that Government policy during the rest of this Parliament, at least on the evidence that he has given, is not to join the euro, but to prepare to join. That would have had consequences for the running of the economy in terms of a fiscal balance and a monetary policy that would lead to a further reduction in our long-term interest rates to approximately those on the continent.
Our long-term interest rates have fallen to about 6 per cent., but they have further to fall if we are to be ready to join the euro. That is a problem for the manufacturing community. We have a strong pound because it is thought that we are not going to join within a clear timetable. That is a criticism of the Chancellor, and I should welcome early clarification of how the economy is to be run to prepare for what he described in his speech as the probability of our entering monetary union in the early part of the next decade. I want him to be much more precise. That precision is essential in respect of our influence within the monetary union during the period that we are not a member. Our influence would grow if there were a feeling that we would definitely join.
Concern has been expressed about what might happen in Italy or in other countries that are still coming to terms with the Maastricht convergence criteria. Other issues, such as liberal markets, the movement of people from one country or from one job market to another and the incidence of fiscal transfers within the stability pact and the European budget, will be crucial to whether the euro succeeds. Theoretically, it is not yet an optimal currency area. It therefore has politically to be made into that, and that will require brave decisions by the leaders of member countries. It is vital that we are part of that decision-making process: we firmly believe that we can contribute to the debate, so we should try to influence it in the direction in which we want it to go.
The Chancellor missed the point about Euro X, which is not that it will meet comfortably with those who are not members, but that, by being outside it, we shall not be at the heart of decisions or share the management of the economies of member countries with the management of ours. That issue is about not only national interest, but understanding how the national interest can be improved by working with other countries that are part of the currency zone.
There will be a huge impact on this country, which too many hon. Members turn their backs on: 80 per cent. of our home market will have a single currency, virtually from this weekend. To compete with 80 per cent. of our home market, we shall take a currency risk while those countries will not. Many companies will take a consequential decision about where their investments should be if they suspect that our stay outside currency union will be extended beyond a certain period.
I want precision in the timetable so that, as Sir Richard Sykes said in his evidence to the Treasury Committee, investment decisions are not affected because people think that our period outside will be prolonged. Many companies that are active in this country are beginning to change their investment decisions, certainly at the margin.
I welcome the Chancellor's clarification today—he only touched on the matter briefly, but I think that it was clarification—that the euro will be acceptable in transactions in Britain. I welcome it largely because that is what will happen anyway and it is better that we understand that.
Again, I put pressure on the Chancellor. What is his clear policy for preparing Britain's public services to utilise the euro? It is not possible just to say that companies can prepare and file their returns in euros. What transactions will the public services be prepared to do in euros and what preparation has the Inland Revenue made to match the demands of industry during the period when we are out? Those are crucial questions which will face Britain in the near future.
The big part of the debate is the public view, which I accept is negative to the euro at the moment, but negative because it now believes that all the costs in relation to the euro would occur if we went in. Yet, in a short time, it will be clearly seen that the political and economic costs of being out are substantial. No Chancellor will ignore the calculation of those costs. They are political costs, not least in the fact that, for example, if we were in a single currency zone, our sensitivity to volatility of currencies would be reduced from the high level at which it is at the moment to a low level, bearing it in mind that 50 per cent. of our trade in goods and services is with the rest of the euro zone.
A single currency would obviously benefit British industry. The cost to it of being out will be considerable. It would have a severe effect on our influence on global trade, which is vital if Britain is to continue its high propensity to import and export. It may well be that it will reduce our impact within the now Group of Seven, but it may well, de facto, be the group of three in the not-too-distant future. In addition, we shall have no influence on what will rapidly become the second reserve currency in the world. There are problems in being a reserve currency, but that will be the fact, largely because of the propensity to import and export of the existing euro zone and the fact that debts will be converted into the

euro. Those are huge issues. They are not issues which can be debated in the House in less than two hours; they are issues that will be debated in the country.
I urge all hon. Members to recognise that we cannot reduce the issue to the simple chant of sovereignty, because there are sovereignty issues which are related to the degree of influence of the British Government, Labour or Conservative. Those are the issues where, ultimately, our influence leads to the improvement in well-being of the British people.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The decision that will be taken by 11 countries in Brussels this weekend will be a momentous one—momentous for them and momentous for the future of Europe. There are fundamental objections to the single currency, on grounds of democracy and economics. The creation of a single currency, the abolition of national currencies, the setting up of the European central bank, and the entrenching in treaty of the ridiculously called stability and growth pact mark a substantial transfer of power from democratic Governments and Parliaments to undemocratic, bureaucratic and largely unaccountable institutions.
Some will agree and some will disagree, but a single currency is another step in the march towards a centralised European state. That state already has a flag, an anthem, citizens, a Supreme Court, an Executive, a Parliament and, after this weekend or by 1 January, it will have a single currency and a central bank. Before long, who knows, the centralised state will seek to levy taxation centrally and in its own right.
The Chancellor did not mention the choice that will be made this weekend of the presidency of the new European central bank. The shadow Chancellor did. Much of the talk will not be about sovereignty or the transfer of democratic power; much of the talk at the tables, in the margins, at the dinners, will be about who will be the new president of the European central bank. Who will be the high priest, the Caiaphas, of this new monetary temple? Meetings are already taking place, faxes and telephone calls are going around, communiqués are being drafted and redrafted by some of the finest minds in Europe, and, no doubt, there will be a showdown or two before Monday when the final decision is taken. All that will be to decide whether the new Caiaphas should either be Herr Duisenberg, the candidate of the Germanic Pharisees, or Monsieur Trichet, the candidate of the Frankish Sadducees. Like the Pharisees and the Sadducees, we are assured that they are both strict, but in different ways.
Who cares who wins that contest? It will make no difference. The new champion, once he, or perhaps she—I am told that a Finnish lady is coming up pretty fast on the inside; I do not know, but I expect that it will be a man—slips into the back seat of that long Mercedes carrying a copy of the wretched treaty of Maastricht, will make no difference at all. The president of the central bank will be bound by the words, paragraphs, protocols, clauses and preambles of that wretched Maastricht treaty. The priority will be price stability, price stability, price stability.
The poor president of the central bank will have to find that magical rate of interest which, apparently, will apply to 11 different countries, some with different economies,


some with different cultures, some whose economies are converging and some whose economies are diverging. He will have to find one magical rate of interest to cover all those countries. I am told that Eddie George does not want to be a candidate. Considering the difficulty that poor Eddie has in fixing a rate of interest for poor little Britain, I can well understand his reluctance to be drafted for that particular job.
However, one group of people may not care who will be president. It might be the group of young German youths who, in Saxony last Sunday, voted for a nasty and evil neo-Nazi party. The real surprise to me was not that they voted for that nasty neo-Nazi party, but that they voted at all. It seems that perhaps there was a vestige, somewhere among these young people, of a belief that a vote counts. Perhaps in the Germany of before 1 January 1999, even in the inclusive politics of Germany, a vote counts. Certainly after 1 January 1999, a vote will count for a lot less. Inclusive politics will then have been entrenched in treaty and the young men who voted in Saxony will be outside the tent.
There will be no hope of change from the central bank. The poor old president will be studying his pie charts and graphs trying to find that magical rate of interest. Price stability does not guarantee low unemployment. The Germans know that, because they have price stability and high unemployment. The Japanese are rapidly learning that, and they have an excess of price stability and increasing unemployment. Therefore, the central bank will not assist those poor youngsters from Saxony. There is no hope from the European budget, because that is only 2 per cent. of GDP at the moment. A far greater European budget is needed to compensate for the loss of economic sovereignty for the different countries of the EU.

Mr. Llew Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davies: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
There is not much hope either from the German national Government. Once the core of stability and growth of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and all the strictness and orthodoxy of the high priests have been visited on the German Government, they will have no money to spend in east Germany, Saxony or anywhere else.
Those young people have no hope of doing what their American counterparts might do—simply getting on a Greyhound bus and travelling from Chicago to Atlanta, or from Detroit to Denver, to find a job. There is no hope of that for the poor, misguided youngsters from Saxony who voted for the Nazi party. Sadly, the problem is not confined to Saxony, or to east Germany, but exists in most of the member countries that are seeking to sign up to the euro.
It seems that the European Union still lives in its own inflexible and undemocratic world of treaties, lawyers, bureaucrats and high contracting parties. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was the Schuman plan and the extremely authoritarian European Coal and Steel Community. Now we have the Delors plan and the extremely authoritarian European central bank. Nothing much changes in the European Union—except, occasionally, the words.
However, the world has changed since the 1950s and 1960s, because the world outside is now a global economy, and I do not believe that the inflexibility and rigidities of what will be decided over the weekend fit into that world. I believe that, just as business must be flexible, Governments and constitutions need flexibility, because that is the only way that they can meet the storms that will be created by the global economy in which we live.
My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give the euro a miss this weekend. I commend them for their wisdom. I hope that their wisdom lasts a long time.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: It is not usually my habit to question the Chair, but I am surprised that the Chair has decided that it is necessary for the House to hear the voice of the two Conservative parties and the two Labour parties, on this issue of all issues, before they hear the single voice of the Liberal Democrats. If that is to be the pattern of future debates, I wonder whether the seating arrangements should be reorganised, and the Standing Orders of the House rewritten, to account for the fact that there are two Conservative parties, two Labour parties and one united Liberal Democrat party.
The debate is about something that many hon. Members on both sides of the House said would not happen. The single currency is going to happen; and, in Britain, on an issue dominated to date by philosophical and theoretical arguments, it is about to become a very practical issue at last. Yet the Government have allocated just a couple of hours for the House of Commons to consider economic and monetary union—the biggest issue of economic policy that this country will face in the 20th century—and, in spite of their protests, the Conservative Opposition agreed to it because, as is obvious, the longer they have to speak, the more divisions will be exposed to public view. That is also true of the Government.
Instead of deciding and preparing, Britain is sleepwalking into its economic future. For the time being, the Government are happy to hide behind their magnificently contrived fudge of "five economic tests"—measures of Britain's readiness to join the single currency which are so elastic that they could stretch to the planet Vulcan and back.
Preparing for EMU should mean more than simply sending out a few thousand leaflets to businesses every six months. It means taking a decision, securing popular support, preparing the economy to make EMU a success and then shaping monetary union in Britain's interests.

Ms Rachel Squire: Yes.

Mr. Bruce: No, unfortunately not—according to the Government's game plan.
Let us start with the decision itself, and let us be honest about the balance of the argument. No one is suggesting that, on day two of the single currency, we shall all be cleaning our teeth in champagne. There will be up-front costs of introducing the new currency.
Not many people spend their time travelling through the 15 countries of the EU, changing their money back and forth into different currencies until bank charges


gobble up 50 per cent. of their cash, and that is not the core issue. However, in the view of the Liberal Democrat party, the long-term gains of joining the single currency will be far greater than the short-term costs.
A single currency will help our firms to trade, by reducing risks and instability, and membership of the single currency will almost certainly mean lower interest rates in Britain—probably, between 1 and 2 per cent. lower than would otherwise be the case. That is worth, very practically, between £300 and £600 a year to the average mortgage payer; thousands—if not millions—of pounds a year to businesses; and billions of pounds to taxpayers as a result of lower debt charges. The single currency is also likely to bring gains from greater price competition, lower transaction costs and higher inward investment.
What action should we be taking now to prepare Britain for the single currency? The first move should be an early referendum, in this Parliament, because a change of such magnitude should be made only with the explicit approval of the people, and because, without a clear decision—this is fundamental—no proper planning can be done by business or Government. People will not spend hundreds of billions of pounds to prepare for something that they are not sure will happen, or—if it does—when it will happen.
Once a referendum has been fought and won, the Government need to promote a series of "docking proposals" to ensure that the single currency can be introduced successfully. The Government's first step must be to comply with the conditions for joining the single currency. Some of those are essentially technical, such as longer terms of appointment for Bank of England officials. However, the most fundamental point is that a period of exchange rate stability is likely to be necessary before an irrevocable locking of exchange rates.
However, I contend that, once the decision to join is taken, that task would become far easier than it would be now. Markets would immediately bring down United Kingdom interest rates, and sterling would converge towards a likely monetary union joining level. We have had evidence of that in the markets.
Therefore, given the political commitment to join, and wide bands of acceptable fluctuation, there is no reason why Britain should have any difficulty in stabilising the pound at an acceptable level before entry.
Fiscal policy would have to operate in relation to monetary policy in order to converge UK and euro interest rates, so that, at the moment of docking, they were at broadly the same level. That is the convergence which we need to secure. To facilitate that process, the Government should now provide for half-yearly convergence reports, which I suggest should be jointly presented to the Treasury Select Committee by the Treasury and the Bank of England.
What about our economy within the single currency? Is there enough flexibility within the single currency area to make EMU work effectively? I believe that the fears have been much exaggerated by the critics, who draw attention—I heard one of them shout from the Back Benches—to disparities in unemployment within Europe, and decry the loss of national monetary flexibility. In Britain, however, unemployment rates range from some 0.9 per cent.—in the Wokingham constituency, interestingly—to more than 18 per cent. in inner Birmingham.
Presumably, the logic of the red-blooded, Euro-sceptic, right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) would lead to different currencies and monetary policies within the United Kingdom. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has moved on from his fantasies about becoming the 51st state of the USA, which seems to be his ambition, and will be pushing for a central bank of Berkshire, which could set an interest rate perfectly attuned to the local economy. That, I fear, is the logic of his position.
There are actions that we could take to introduce greater flexibility. First, we could make our economy slightly less sensitive to interest rate changes by encouraging a move to fixed-rate mortgages of, let us say, 10 to 15-year duration. Secondly, we need to consider a larger role for fiscal policy as an economic stabiliser—something that has fallen out of fashion as a result of some poor recent economic management and the political fixation about lower taxation. What if we could frame a better fiscal stabiliser, not by taxing people more but by, let us say, varying contribution rates to a compulsory pension scheme, or varying tax reliefs on existing pension schemes?
Thirdly, we could facilitate labour mobility through pension portability and the mutual recognition of qualifications. Finally, we should be doing more to shape monetary union in our own interests. We should be arguing for more fiscal flexibility for countries with responsible amounts of public debt, such as the UK. We should also press for a European central bank that is more accountable to the people of Europe through the European Parliament.
While others design and build, as they are doing this weekend, Britain dithers on the touchline. While we delay, we are being left out of key economic decisions that will be taken by the Euro X committee, and ultimately by the central bank. Those decisions will directly affect our domestic rates of interest and exchange rates, but no British representative will have any influence on them.
If the Government are, in principle, in favour of joining monetary union, are they not aware of the enormous risk of delaying entry and leaving its timetable so vague and imprecise? I suspect that the Chancellor's attempt to build stability at home and win economic influence abroad is undermined by a Prime Minister with his eyes too much on the latest opinion polls and too little on the main chance for Britain. Being a populist Prime Minister certainly makes him popular, but it may also make him duck the leadership decisions that are necessary to bring about the right results for the United Kingdom.
If the Chancellor wants to secure the economic stability to which he says he is committed, he should knock on his Downing street neighbour's door and insist on reopening the Government's single currency policy immediately.
The sad fact is that the Government have got themselves into this position by accident. We all know that the Chancellor's preferred position was to take an early decision on entry; but that was unfortunately leaked to the Financial Times, with consequential effects on the markets which clearly demonstrated what the benefits would be. As a result, an embarrassed Government sent Charlie Whelan round to the Red Lion pub with his mobile phone, to have a pint of beer and to spin the argument in the opposite direction. The Chancellor then


came to the House and gave us his economic tests—and his decision that we would not decide on entry within the lifetime of this Parliament.
Once monetary union is established, it will become more apparent as each day goes by that Britain's interests demand a decision in this Parliament. A Government who fail to take that decision will have failed the British people and the British national interest.

Mr. Roger Casale: We are on the eve of a watershed in post-war European affairs, and there can be no more fitting commemoration of the stunning Labour victory of a year ago than that a Labour Prime Minister should preside over a meeting of the European Heads of State, which will decide which countries will participate in the euro. Those Heads of State will know that our Prime Minister is committed to making the euro a success. There can be no more important decision in Europe today than the decision on which countries will take part in the third stage of monetary union. That decision will be made tomorrow at a meeting presided over, in good faith, by a Labour British Prime Minister.
The meeting is crucial to the future of Europe because the third stage of monetary union will represent a massive deepening of European integration in advance of a widening of Europe to the east. It is vital to the future of Europe that European monetary union be a success. Monetary union is also important to safeguard the gains from European integration made in the past. The previous Administration were strong advocates of the single market. Surely Conservatives recognise, as we do, that the single currency will underpin the economic gains of the single market.
Yet by tabling their amendment, the Conservatives seek to scupper the successful launch of the euro. That is why it is important to state in this debate the positive case for the euro and further monetary integration. The countries that want to sign up to EMU are not doing so just because they have passed the convergence test, important though that is. They are doing so because they can see the positive economic gains that will flow from membership of the single currency. If a common market is good for Europe, let us have a common market that is as complete as possible. In that common market we have a common measure of length, the metre, a common measure of weight, the kilo; and we will soon have a common measure of economic value as well. The justification for the euro is as strong as it was for the single market itself. The removal of transaction costs—changing from one European currency to another—will be a major boost to consumers and to the European economy.
The justification for monetary integration and the euro goes far beyond the narrow though important aim of completing the single market. Since 1969, European leaders have striven to find a system that could bring back some of the stability that was once provided by the Bretton Woods system of exchange rate parities. When that system broke down at the time of the Vietnam war, because it was abandoned by the Americans who had created it and whose dollar was its cornerstone, European leaders looked around for an alternative. That was when the plan for a European currency—the Werner plan—was launched: ironically, at The Hague summit of 1969.
Over the past 30 years, the search for the stability necessary to make that project a reality has proved elusive. As a result, we have lived through a generation, from the oil crisis onwards, of high inflation, persistently high unemployment and high and rising Government debt. Throughout this period the national economies of Europe have proved themselves incapable of managing major international shocks of this kind on their own. A single monetary policy and currency will help them to do so, and we should wish them well.
The euro is the essential element in preparing Europe for the rigours, the pressures and the challenges of global competition. Just as my party has had to, the Conservative party should face up to that challenge. The euro represents a unique opportunity to integrate Europe in the global economy, perhaps as the most powerful economic player on the world stage. At a stroke, the establishment of the euro will see off the currency speculators. At a stroke, the euro will challenge the dollar as the international reserve currency. And at a stroke, we shall have shifted the balance of world economic power in favour of Europe. That is why the euro can and must succeed.
Although economic arguments will be to the fore in tomorrow's discussions, I should emphasise that the implementation of the euro will require political commitment too. It is economically justified, but it will need political commitment to succeed. That commitment has so far been shown to the greatest extent by Germany, which stands ready to give up the independence of the Bundesbank; which action, if carried out, will be the greatest contribution that that country has made to post-war Europe. It will secure Germany's European credentials once and for all. Italy and France may also be able to make such a commitment, and Britain should show the rest of Europe our political commitment to making the euro work, too.
By creating a single currency, we are not creating a single language, identity, culture, or any of the other spectres feared by some Conservative Members. Indeed, Europe has distinguished itself by its diversity, which will continue. But we will be creating a strong base for continued co-operation in Europe, for lasting peace, and for macro-economic stability. Those may secure for Europe a leading position in the world economy, on which basis I commend the reports to the House.

Sir Michael Spicer: It would be nice to join in the ebb and flow of the debate, but given the scandalous shortage of time that we have for it, I shall confine myself to probing the Government on their exact position on entry to European monetary union. Apparently, the position as restated today is that they want to go in, subject to the economic tests, and subject, presumably, to the Maastricht criteria. However, their position looks increasingly incredible in both respects, and especially so after this debate.
Let me deal first with the Maastricht criteria by giving the House a flavour of what was said about them when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was questioned by the Select Committee on the Treasury. I shall—perhaps at


random—pick out the questions that I asked the Chancellor. I asked:
When the question comes up at the Council of Ministers on 2 and 3 May as to who should be the members of the first wave of the single currency, will the British Government be taking a strict view or not of the Maastricht criteria on compliance?
The Chancellor replied:
I think it is important that the Maastricht convergence criteria are looked at very carefully … As I say, I am not going to get in a position of prejudging individual countries or prejudging what might be decided.
The discussion goes on for a column or so, and then I ask:
If they do not meet the criteria, will it be the position of the British Government … that there should be a veto on their accession?
The Chancellor replied:
It is very important that we look very carefully at these convergence criteria and the reports.
I continued:
I think it is extraordinary that you cannot give us a yes or no.
He replied:
Let us wait and see the figures.
And so it goes on for another column or so in this rather frustrating way.
The figures are now available, and we have heard a great deal about them during this debate. They show that Italy and Belgium are missing the criteria by 100 per cent. Contrary to what has been said, there are signs that Italy's deficit is rising rather than falling. Much has been said about falling within the criteria, but that deficit looks as if it is going the other way. The Maastricht criteria do not seem to matter much, at least to the Government.

Mr. Rammell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Michael Spicer: No, I cannot possibly give way at this stage.
The Maastricht criteria appear not to matter, as we shall see over the weekend. However, I want to put one specific question about the criteria to the Government. It is the same question put by the Treasury Committee in its report: must we go back into the exchange rate mechanism for two years before we decide on whether to apply properly for the single currency?
Let me now turn to the economic tests which the Government have set themselves for entry to EMU. The principal test is the convergence test. Let me again give the House a flavour of what was asked on that by—again at random—me. I asked the Chancellor:
How many cycles do you think we have to wait for before we know whether we are in sync?
He replied:
I think it could be earlier than that",
to which I asked:
Earlier than what?
He said:
You were suggesting that somehow we have to wait 20, 30 or 40 years.
I replied that I had not, saying:
I was asking a question … This is a very easy question. If you are trying to get your cycle in sync with somebody else, you must go through at least one cycle to make sure whether you are in sync, surely?

He said:
I do not accept that.
So, the Government do not accept that we have to be in sync over a cycle to meet the convergence criteria, but in its report the Treasury Committee was quite tough on the point, saying that it wanted not only convergence criteria but more detail of what could be involved, including mortgages, pension funds and all the factors that make different cycles. The truth is that the gaps in the cycles are widening, which makes one question whether the Government are serious about their economic tests.
So serious is the question that the Treasury Committee—the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) may not like this, but it is a Labour-controlled Committee and some of its members are loyalist members of his party—included the five-year test.

Mr. Radice: indicated dissent.

Sir Michael Spicer: He said today that he did not like that. I shall check it in Hansard tomorrow, but he said that he thought in retrospect that he should not have included the five-year test. However, that is what is in the report.
The Committee has stated that there should be at least a five-year period to assess the convergence test. The irony is that just as the Government are apparently backsliding on the economic test, the business community is beginning to wake up to the fact that it could be rather important and that entry to EMU—certainly premature entry—could be very serious indeed for business.
The European Research Group will publish a paper in several weeks' time, which will be signed by more than 100 chairmen and chief executives of public companies, stating that from an economic point of view, and taking into account the tests, they do not think it is appropriate to join. The main thrust of their arguments is that it will be bad for interest rates, and that because we are not converging as economies, the cycles that we would face would be dominated by the cycle of the German economy, which is the size of those of Britain and France put together. German interest rates would effectively determine our own, and that would not be appropriate to our country.
Secondly, exchange rates will be inappropriate because exchange rates are properly determined by market conditions, and that is the one thing that will not happen under a single currency.
Above all, EMU will be bad for taxation in this country. I remind hon. Members who have not had a chance to read our report of the evidence of the Governor of the Bank of England. It said:
if structural differences persisted 'you could have difficulty in getting a single monetary policy which is appropriate for the area' … if there was not the pressure to generate flexibility, which would often resolve these tensions, that would give rise to pressure for fiscal transfers, there would be that great political debate … The tensions could take the form of 'pressure for some countries experiencing long-term unemployment and stagnation to have fiscal redistribution on a larger scale and there will be great resistance to that.'


That means, in simple language, which the Governor was too polite to use, a massive central taxation system.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Michael Spicer: I cannot; I am sorry.

Mr. Clarke: He did not say that.

Sir Michael Spicer: The hon. Gentleman, who is an assiduous member of the Committee, obviously has not read the report. The Governor used the words that I have just quoted. The Chairman of the Committee said that political factors matter as well as economic ones. The point is that the economic tests are a condition that have to be met. They are not a sufficient condition as it is, of course, true that political factors will have to be taken into account, but the Government cannot have it both ways: if they set economic tests, they must abide by them, but the inference that must be drawn from what they are doing is that they will not do so. The whole process is a sham and we should oppose it at every points.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I express a minority view, although perhaps not as much of a minority view as people imagine? We should go in, even at this, the 11 th hour and 59th minute, at the first stage. If one knows that one is going to catch a train, is it not wise to catch it at the point of departure rather than run along the line and try to catch up with it once it is in motion?
I believe it is a historic mistake not to go in at the first opportunity and I end by asking this question: will the Minister give us some inkling about what the price is of not joining?

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): This is a very short debate.

Mr. Jones: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must sit down when I am speaking. It had better be a point of order, because I shall be very cross if it is not.

Mr. Jones: I need to raise this point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some parties whose members wish to contribute have not been represented in the debate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will please be seated. That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Member for Linlithgow had clearly intended to make a fuller speech:

the brevity of his remarks illustrates the fact that this debate is too short. Many of my hon. Friends also wanted to contribute to potentially one of the most important debates that will take place during this Parliament.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow used the usual metaphor of trains leaving stations. The Opposition always like to know where the train is going before we board it. It has been clear throughout the debate, and throughout our contemplation of this subject, that although the Government are committed in principle to relinquishing the national currency, they have no clear idea why they are doing so or on what terms they should do it.
It is clear beyond doubt that, this weekend, the European Union will embark irrevocably on economic and monetary union, which is an event that, in some ways, is more far-reaching than the founding of the Common Market. It is without historical precedent: it is unknown for monetary union to go ahead before the achievement of political union. Consequently, huge risks are involved. At least in the early years, there will not be the centralised organs of a European Government—a federal budget and so on—that are needed to run a currency. Therefore, it has always been recognised that, at the very least, participating member states must first achieve a high degree of economic convergence, including a harmonised level of Government debt and deficit.
That was written into the treaty during the Maastricht negotiations in 1991. The provisions are binding on all member states, and treaty law ranks ahead of national law. Therefore, it is common ground in all member states, in all institutions of the European Union, and, I think, in the House, that this hugely ambitious project can work only if the treaty provisions are applied strictly, literally and completely. If they are not, damage will be done not just to countries in the euro zone but to neighbouring countries such as Britain. Presumably, that is why, on 5 January this year, the Prime Minister said:
We have got to apply the rules absolutely scrupulously".
We agree. My hon. Friends the Members for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) and for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) and all parties in the House agree with that. Our question is: why is the Chancellor of the Exchequer colluding in a fudged and fiddled treatment of those entry criteria? The answer is that EMU is viewed elsewhere as being primarily a political project. The economic facts have been made to fit the political case, so questions of deficits and interest rates are somehow secondary. The European Commission, which should be the guardian of the treaty, is a committed party to monetary union. It is an advocate of monetary union; it is not neutral. Therefore, the presidency of the European Union—which is Britain for this half-year—must enforce the rules "scrupulously", to use the Prime Minister's phrase. If we do not, damage will result not just in the European Union generally but in this country specifically.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No, I am sorry, but there is too little time.
How can the rules be applied scrupulously when two countries have more than twice the permitted level of debt? How can the Italian debt level of 122 per cent.
be judged to be "sufficiently diminishing"—to use the language in the treaty—when it has increased since the 1991 Maastricht terms were agreed? How can it be sufficiently diminishing when, according to the Italian Government's own highly optimistic forecasts, it will take another 20 years to reach the permitted level? The Chancellor did not answer when we asked him about that. Perhaps he genuinely has not worked out the terms of his fudge: perhaps he does not know how he will square the circle on that one this weekend.
Hon. Members have described many other one-off accounting fixes that were specifically ruled out in the treaty. At the Dublin summit in December 1996, the supreme decision-making body of the European Union said:
It is equally important that … government financial positions in particular are sustainable and not affected by measures of temporary effect.
Yet France just squeaked in to the 3 per cent. permitted deficit level via a one-off accounting fiddle whereby it took 37 billion francs from France Telecom last year. That is outlawed under the terms of the Dublin summit, but France has done it and there is not a squeak of criticism from the chairman of the committee that is to make the momentous decisions.
This Government have failed politically—and it is not just the European Union that will suffer. Member states collectively, but particularly the committee presidency, must ensure that the treaty language is applied strictly. The German Government have desperately sought additional commitments from member states. At last week's ECOFIN, Mr. Waigel, the German Finance Minister, desperately launched a new draft declaration on budgetary consolidation. It is a last-minute fix, but at least the Germans are trying. What is the Chancellor doing to help? Why must it be left to the Germans to try to salvage something from the wreckage of the treaty provisions?
The Chancellor has five tests that he will apply to the United Kingdom to help him decide whether we should join monetary union in due course. The Treasury Committee criticised those tests as being unclear and subjective. It asked why the Chancellor applied those tests to this country as a reason for keeping us out, when they are a reason for letting everyone else in. The Chancellor is breaking his own entry criteria tests as well as the treaty rules. The muddle and incompetence are made worse by the Government's failure to resolve the dispute about who should be president of the European central bank. That issue has been drifting on for months and it is doing great damage to the perception of the euro in world markets, because no one knows what the bank's future monetary policy will be.
The Treasury Committee observed that damage would be caused to this country by an unstable and weak euro. That is already happening. Sterling is a currency of refuge. Markets do not like what is happening on the continent—they do not like the fudging and the fiddling—so they are buying sterling. The strength of sterling is already causing unnecessary damage to manufacturing industry, farming and the exporting industries, as revealed by the yawning trade gap. The Government are responsible because they will chair the crucial meetings this weekend. Instead of serving the interests of member states, they are betraying them by colluding in a policy that puts political expediency before economic facts. Europe and the British economy will pay a heavy price for that.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): This has been an interesting debate. It started with a degree of manic passion across the House, which quickly became manic depression when the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) rose to speak. We had a lesson in leadership from the Liberal Democrats, which was amusing in itself. The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) then read out his speech to the Treasury Committee, which gives a new meaning to the phrase "vanity publishing". We should be grateful that at least he did not try to mimic the voices of those present at the time.
We are on the eve of a significant moment for Europe. This weekend, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will chair key meetings to decide which countries should join the single currency on 1 January 1999. This year—one year on from the general election—a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer and a Labour Prime Minister are respected and admired, as distinct from their Conservative predecessors, by our partners in Europe. We all remember the shame that this country experienced because of the Conservative Government's performance.
Let me reiterate that the UK Government believe that a successful single currency would be in the interests of Europe and of Great Britain.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Liddell: I have no intention of giving way. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) did not give way to my hon. Friends, and a number of points were made in the debate which I wish to answer.
The Government believe that a successful single currency will lock in monetary and fiscal stability, and provide a competitive boost to European business. The rest of Europe now knows that the UK Government share the objective of a successful single currency. We are the first United Kingdom Government to declare themselves in favour of the principle of a single currency. We look to the future because we do not have to keep looking over our shoulders to see what is happening on the divided Benches behind us.
May I take up some of the points made in the course of this debate? The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) eventually made a rather petulant speech. I must point out to him that we shall not join in the first wave because our economy has neither the necessary convergence with the rest of Europe nor the necessary flexibility for it to be in our economic interest to do so. We want the single currency to succeed. For the British Government to enter a single currency when we believe that it would not be in our interests would damage the single currency. We shall take decisions based on the best interests of the UK economy.
The official Opposition have already made it perfectly clear that, even if it were in Britain's national economic interest, they would not join a single currency. Would that be for five, 10 or 60 years? Their ideological or theological differences matter more to Conservative Members than Britain's national economic interests.
We heard a considerable amount about Italy, although we did not hear quite as much about what Opposition Members think about Britain's position in relation to a single currency. I want to look specifically at the position of Italy. The treaty is clearly not hard and fast.


Conservative Members should be well aware of that, as it was they who signed it. The treaty makes it clear that the debt level, which is part of the excessive deficit position, is open to interpretation, and it has been rightly interpreted in the past. When the Conservatives were in government in 1994, ECOFIN, which included the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), decided that Ireland did not have an excessive deficit when its debt stood at 96 per cent. In 1996, the Council reached the same conclusion about Denmark when its deficit stood at 72 per cent., so some consistency from Conservative Members would have been appreciated.
I reiterate the point in relation to Italy: the deficit over the past four years has been much smaller, at only three points, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor pointed out. The Italian Government's draft budget was announced earlier this month and is currently being debated before the Italian Parliament. It makes it clear that the Italians are aiming to bring the debt ratio down by 3 per cent. a year over the next four years. Those figures must be put into context. Italy has been running a primary surplus since the early 1990s and its overall deficit is forecast to remain on a declining trend, below 3 per cent., with a current account surplus.
I wish to make an extremely important point: we must make clear the significance of sustaining debt reduction for all EU member states, but especially those with high debts. That fits in very much with UK domestic policy, which is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that we are working with other member states towards a declaration that re-commits European countries to continued fiscal discipline through the stability and growth pacts.
As well as the criteria that we shall discuss this weekend, it is of critical importance to the success of the single currency that there is structural reform. EMU will require economic reform, and this Labour Government have led the debate in Europe on that. Attention to the supply side will determine the employment and productive capacity of Europe's economies. It is only by undertaking reform that we can ensure that EMU works and is in our national interest.
The hon. Member for West Worcestershire asked about the exchange rate mechanism. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that we have no intention of rejoining the exchange rate mechanism.

Sir Michael Spicer: You have to.

Mrs. Liddell: It is perfectly clear from the European Monetary Institute reports published in relation to EMU that we do not have to. Finland and Italy are two cases in point. The exchange rate conditions can be interpreted flexibly. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman, because I know of his interest in these matters, that ERM will become a different beast after the establishment of a single currency zone. I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said time and again: we do not intend to rejoin the ERM.

Mr. Lilley: Will the hon. Lady confirm that she disagrees with the Treasury Committee report, which says:
the Commission and EMI reports indicated that Sweden was not considered to have met the criterion because it had not participated in the ERM at all."?

If Sweden is excluded on that ground—otherwise it would have been forced by law to join—why would we be allowed to join, as we did not voluntarily join the ERM?

Mrs. Liddell: I regret having given way to the right hon. Gentleman. I did so because of his position in the House. He should read the EMI report, because he has quoted selectively. The decision on Sweden relates to the position of its central bank.
May I return to the substantive points that hon. Members made in the debate? My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked about the cost of not joining a single currency. That question goes to the heart of this debate. The cost of not joining is being out of sync with the rest of Europe, and cutting ourselves off from the global opportunities that will be available to us, from the removal of transaction costs and from an opportunity to work in concert with our European partners. That is why the Government have said that if it is in Britain's economic interests to join a single currency, we see no barrier to our doing so.
However, it would not be right to join in the lifetime of this Parliament, to a large extent because of the position that we inherited from the previous Government. Conservative Members try hard to pretend that the events of last year did not happen, but one of the most illuminating factors that the Government experienced on 2, 3 and 4 May was to see the fudges of the previous Government and the extent to which they were prepared to play politics rather than take into account the nation's interests.
The British Government have an opportunity tomorrow, as we have had over the past year, to enable member states to maximise their potential for the benefit of every European citizen. We have won the respect of the other member states, which is particularly important given the shameful behaviour of the previous Government. I am proud that tomorrow and on Saturday I shall see these momentous decisions being taken. I am also proud to be part of a Government who are enabling this country to prepare for entry into EMU and who will decide when it is in Britain's national economic interest to join.
I urge the House to support the motion and to wish the Chancellor and the Prime Minister well at the summit over the weekend.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 287.

Division No. 265]
[7 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Amess, David
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Arbuthnot, James
Burns, Simon


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Butterfill, John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cash, William


Baldry, Tony
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Bercow, John
(Chipping Barnet)


Blunt, Crispin
Clappison, James


Body, Sir Richard
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)


Boswell, Tim
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
(Rushcliffe)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Brady, Graham
Collins, Tim


Brazier, Julian
Colvin, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Cormack, Sir Patrick






Cran, James
MacKay, Andrew


Curry, Rt Hon David
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Madel, Sir David


Day, Stephen
Malins, Humfrey


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Mates, Michael


Duncan, Alan
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Duncan Smith, Iain
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
May, Mrs Theresa


Evans, Nigel
Moss, Malcolm


Faber, David
Norman, Archie


Fabricant, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Page, Richard


Flight, Howard
Paice, James


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Pickles, Eric


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Prior, David


Fox, Dr Liam
Randall, John


Fraser, Christopher
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
Robathan, Andrew


Garnier, Edward
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gibb, Nick
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gill, Christopher
Ruffley, David


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
St Aubyn, Nick


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Green, Damian
Shepherd, Richard


Greenway, John
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Grieve, Dominic
Soames, Nicholas


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hammond, Philip
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Spring, Richard


Hayes, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Heald, Oliver
Steen, Anthony


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Streeter, Gary


Horam, John
Swayne, Desmond


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Syms, Robert


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hunter, Andrew
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Jenkin, Bernard
Townend, John


Johnson Smith,
Tredinnick, David


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Trend, Michael


Key, Robert
Tyrie, Andrew


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Viggers, Peter


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Walter, Robert


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Wardle, Charles


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Lansley, Andrew
Wilkinson, John


Leigh, Edward
Wilshire, David


Letwin, Oliver
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Woodward, Shaun


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Yeo, Tim


Loughton, Tim



Luff, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Mr. John M. Taylor and


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Mr. John Whittingdale.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bermingham, Gerald


Ainger, Nick
Betts, Clive


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Blackman, Liz


Allan, Richard
Blizzard, Bob


Allen, Graham
Boateng, Paul


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Borrow, David


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Ashton, Joe
Bradshaw, Ben


Atkins, Charlotte
Brake, Tom


Banks, Tony
Brand, Dr Peter


Barnes, Harry
Breed, Colin


Battle, John
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Brown, Rt Hon Gordon


Bennett, Andrew F
(Dunfermline E)


Benton, Joe
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)





Browne, Desmond
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Burden, Richard
Hancock, Mike


Burgon, Colin
Harris, Dr Evan


Burstow, Paul
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Butler, Mrs Christine
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hepburn, Stephen


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Heppell, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hesford, Stephen


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hinchliffe, David


Canavan, Dennis
Hoey, Kate


Cann, Jamie
Home Robertson, John


Casale, Roger
Hoon, Geoffrey


Caton, Martin
Hopkins, Kelvin


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Chaytor, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Chidgey, David
Howells, Dr Kim


Church, Ms Judith
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hurst, Alan


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hutton, John


Clelland, David
Iddon, Dr Brian


Clwyd, Ann
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Coaker, Vernon
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Jamieson, David


Coleman, Iain
Jenkins, Brian


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cooper, Yvette
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Corbett, Robin
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Cotter, Brian
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Ms Jenny


Cox, Tom
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Cranston, Ross
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Crausby, David
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Cummings, John
Keetch, Paul


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Dalyell, Tam
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Kidney, David


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davidson, Ian
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kingham, Ms Tess


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Kirkwood, Archy


Dean, Mrs Janet
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Denham, John
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Dobbin, Jim
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Laxton, Bob


Doran, Frank
Lepper, David


Drew, David
Leslie, Christopher


Drown, Ms Julia
Levitt, Tom


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Livingstone, Ken


Etherington, Bill
Livsey, Richard


Fatchett, Derek
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Fearn, Ronnie
Lock, David


Field Rt Hon Frank
Love Andrew


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McAllion, John


Flynn, Paul
McAvoy, Thomas


Follett, Barbara
McCabe, Steve


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McDonnell, John


Fyfe, Maria
McIsaac, Shona


Galloway, George
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gardiner, Barry
McNamara, Kevin


Gerrard, Neil
McNulty, Tony


Gibson, Dr Ian
McWalter, Tony


Godman, Dr Norman A
McWilliam, John


Godsiff, Roger
Mallaber, Judy


Goldings, Mrs Llin
Mandelson, Peter


Gorrie, Donald
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)






Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Singh, Marsha


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Maxton, John
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Michael, Alun
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Mitchell, Austin
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Moore, Michael
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Spellar, John


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Morley, Elliot
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Steinberg, Gerry


Mudie, George
Stevenson, George


Mullin, Chris
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Oaten, Mark
Stinchcombe, Paul


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stoate, Dr Howard


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stott, Roger


O'Hara, Eddie
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Olner, Bill
Stringer, Graham


Organ, Mrs Diana
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stunell, Andrew


Perham, Ms Linda
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Pickthall, Colin
(Dewsbury)


Pike, Peter L
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Plaskitt, James
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pollard, Kerry
Temple—Morris, Peter


Pope, Greg
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pound, Stephen
Timms, Stephen


Powell, Sir Raymond
Tipping, Paddy


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Primarolo, Dawn
Touhig, Don


Prosser, Gwyn
Truswell, Paul


Purchase, Ken
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Quinn, Lawrie
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Radice, Giles
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Rammell, Bill
Tyler, Paul


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Rendel, David
Wallace, James


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Watts, David


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Webb, Steve


Rooker, Jeff
White, Brian


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wicks, Malcolm


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Roy, Frank
(Swansea W)


Ruane, Chris
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Willis, Phil


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Winnick, David


Sanders, Adrian
Wise, Audrey


Sawford, Phil
Wood, Mike


Sedgemore, Brian
Wray, James


Shaw, Jonathan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Ms Bridget Prentice and


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Mr. Jim Dowd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 35.

Division No. 266]
[7.12 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Betts, Clive


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Blizzard, Bob


Allen, Graham
Boateng, Paul


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Borrow, David


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Bradshaw, Ben


Atkins, Charlotte
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Banks, Tony
Brown, Rt Hon Gordon


Barnes, Harry
(Dunfermline E)


Benton, Joe
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Bermingham, Gerald
Browne, Desmond





Burgon, Colin
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Butler, Mrs Christine
 Kidney, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Kingham, Ms Tess


Campbell—Savours, Dale
 Kumar, Dr Ashok


Cann, Jamie
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Casale, Roger
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Caton, Martin
Laxton, Bob


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Lepper, David


Church, Ms Judith
Levitt, Tom


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Livingstone, Ken


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Clelland, David
Love, Andrew


Clwyd, Ann
McAllion, John


Coaker, Vernon
McAvoy, Thomas


Coffey, Ms Ann
McCabe, Steve


Coleman, Iain
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Cooper, Yvette
McDonnell, John


Corbett, Robin
McIsaac, Shona


Cox, Tom
Mackinlay, Andrew


Cranston, Ross
McNamara, Kevin


Crausby, David
McNulty, Tony


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
McWalter, Tony


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McWilliam, John


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Mallaber, Judy


Denham, John
Mandelson, Peter


Dobbin, Jim
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Doran, Frank
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Drew, David
Michael, Alun


Drown, Ms Julia
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeldy)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Moffatt, Laura


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Moran, Ms Margaret


Etherington, Bill
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Fatchett, Derek
Mudie, George


Fitzpatrick, Jim
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Flynn, Paul
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Follett, Barbara
O'Hara, Eddie


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Olner, Bill


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Gardiner, Barry
Perham, Ms Linda


Gerrard, Neil
Pickthall, Colin


Gibson, Dr Ian
Pike, Peter L


Godman, Dr Norman A
Plaskitt, James


Godsiff, Roger
Pollard, Kerry


Griffiths, Jane (Readings E)
Pope, Greg


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Pound, Stephen


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
 Powell, Sir Raymond


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hepburn, Stephen
Prosser, Gwyn


Hinchliffe, David
Purchase, Ken


Hoey, Kate
Quinn, Lawrie


Hoon, Geoffrey
Radice, Giles


Hopkins, Kelvin
Rammell, Bill


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Howells, Dr Kim
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Hurst, Alan
Rooker, Jeff


Hutton, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Roy, Frank


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Sawford, Phil


Jamieson, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Jenkins, Brian
Shaw, Jonathan


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Singh, Marsha


Jones, Ms Jenny
Skinner, Dennis


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Kelly, Ms Ruth
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)






Spellar, John
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Stinchcombe, Paul
Watts, David


Stoate, Dr Howard
White, Brian


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wicks, Malcolm


Stringer, Graham
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Winnick, David


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Wise, Audrey


(Dewsbury)
Wood, Mike


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wray, James


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Timms, Stephen
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tipping, Paddy
Ms Bridget Prentice and


Touhig, Don
Mr. Jim Dowd.




NOES


Allan, Richard
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Brake, Tom
Keetch, Paul


Brand, Dr Peter
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Breed, Colin
KirKwood, Archy


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Livsey, Richard


Burstow, Paul
Moore, Michael


Cable, Dr Vincent
Oaten, Mark


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Rendel, David


Chidgey, David
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Cotter, Brian
Salmond, Alex


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Fearn, Ronnie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Gorrie, Donald
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Hancock, Mike
Tyler, Paul


Harris, Dr Evan
Wallace, James


Harvey, Nick
Webb, Steve


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mr. Andrew Stunell and


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Mr. Adrian Sanders.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7161/98 and 7188/98 consisting of reports from the European Monetary Institute and European Commission in accordance with Article 109j of the Treaty.

Orders of the Day — Scotland Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Order [13th January] relating to Scotland Bill (Programme) be further amended—

(a) in paragraph 2, by leaving out 'at Ten o'clock' and inserting 'six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill';
(b) by inserting, after paragraph 2,—

'2A. On each such allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the bill for any part of the period of six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill which falls after Ten o'clock';

and

(c) in paragraph 4, by inserting after sub-paragraph (3)—

'(3A) If, on consideration, two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or motions'.—[Mr. Betts.]

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I cannot help but notice that we are being given a guaranteed extra six and a half hours on the Scotland Bill programme, whereas this afternoon we thought that we would have three and a half hours to debate the vitally important issue of economic and monetary union, but had barely two hours for our debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I am going keep the debate tight: the hon. Gentleman cannot talk about EMU, but can talk only about the programme motion.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I was not intending to talk about EMU, but was merely drawing the contrast between the amount of time that we had to debate that vital issue and the amount of guaranteed time being given to debate the Scotland Bill, when we have already had so many days in Committee on that Bill. Before we approve the motion, we should consider whether those hours should be devoted to Scotland, instead of to issues that affect the whole country.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I understood that it was the Conservatives' position to want more time devoted to debating the Scotland Bill. There seems to be a division opening up between the Tory Back Benchers and those left on the Tory Front Bench.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I have done some research: I went to the Library and asked for figures on how long the House normally debates Bills. For the last Session for which there is information—the last Session of the previous Parliament—there were 32 Bills, and a total of 227 hours were spent considering those Bills on the Floor of the House, giving an average of about seven hours in total spent on each Bill. The Committee stages of the two constitutional Bills of this Session are taking more than 100 hours of debate on the Floor of the House. It is perfectly reasonable for hon. Members to debate this


evening whether it is right that we should devote a guaranteed extra six and a half hours to one of those constitutional Bills.

Mr. Eric Forth: Will my hon. Friend make it clear during his speech whether he welcomes the extension of time in principle, whether he is unhappy with what has brought it about and whether he feels that it should be more widely applied in other circumstances? That would help those of us who want to participate in the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) is not going to talk about any wider applications; he will confine his remarks to the motion before the House.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would lead me down dangerous paths if I were to let him, and it is not my intention to do so.
It is worth considering why we need the extra six and a half hours of debate and, in the absence of any statement from the Leader of the House in proposing the motion, I can only divine that one of the reasons is to make sure that we have a six-and-a-half-hour debate on the West Lothian question.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): Would the hon. Gentleman care to correct the impression that he has given? I am sure that he has read extremely carefully both tonight's motion and the order that it would amend. He would be misleading the House were he to suggest that we propose an extra six and a half hours.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I have the original motion of 13 January in front of me. As a new Member, I find some of the rules and regulations a little hard to follow and, if that is what has happened, I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker; however, as I understand it, the motion before us guarantees periods of six and a half hours when they might not otherwise be available. I have given the example of this afternoon, when we thought that we would have a three-and-a-half-hour debate on an issue of national importance, but the time available was cut. My understanding of the motion, in the absence of further clarification from the right hon. Lady, is that, from the time we start on the Scottish issue, we shall have an absolutely guaranteed six and a half hours for debate.
The question is, should we allow that? I have read the rules and the proposals carefully and there is nothing on the face of the motion or in the order of 13 January to suggest for one moment that what we shall be discussing in that six and a half hours is the West Lothian question.

Mr. Salmond: May I offer another explanation for the allocation of six and a half hours? Might it be because some hon. Members are talking for too long about very little indeed?

Mr. St. Aubyn: That is often the case—the hon. Gentleman has made a valuable point, and it is one that I hope he will bear in mind when he rises to speak in future.

It is critical that we have a statement. Perhaps the Leader of the House would like to intervene again, to assure us that the substantive purpose of the amendment to the order is to ensure that we have a debate on the West Lothian question. If that is the purpose, I would welcome it, albeit conditionally, and I would be prepared to support the motion, because the West Lothian question is of great importance to this country. However, if we are being guaranteed six and a half hours for a debate on that issue—one of constitutional importance, which goes to the heart of the Scotland Bill—it is fair to ask ourselves why we are not being guaranteed similar periods of time to consider the other vital issues that are being brought before the House in rapid succession by the new Government.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Is six and a half hours long enough? The West Lothian question is the same as what used to be called the Irish question, on which, under the Gladstone Government, the House spent weeks. Under the previous Labour Government, the House spent days on the West Lothian question, but we now have six and a half hours in which to consider a matter that is pertinent to the future of the United Kingdom. Is that satisfactory?

Mr. St. Aubyn: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. If so much time had not been spent in Committee on the Floor of the House considering the minutiae of the Scotland Bill, we could have had many hours in which to debate this vital constitutional issue. It is extraordinary that so much time has been spent debating the Bill when the so-called West Lothian question has not been considered, especially as consideration of that question could determine whether hon. Members continue to support the Bill.

Mr. Salmond: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was present, so I should tell him that the West Lothian question was indeed discussed at two sittings when the Bill was considered in Committee.

Mr. Leigh: Very briefly.

Mr. Salmond: Not that briefly. At any rate, the question has been considered—perhaps the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) will accept the correction.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful for that minor correction, but my substantive point still holds. I should have thought that Scottish National party Members, as well as Conservative Members, would have been keen at the outset to deal with the most substantive issue relating to the Scotland Bill and its consequences for the rest of the United Kingdom. The reason why the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) does not care about the West Lothian question is that it has an impact on England—the attitude is, "I'm all right, Jock." We have a problem with Scottish Members if that is their attitude and if they are not prepared to consider the Bill's impact on the people of England.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the merits of the Bill, but we are not considering the Bill's merits—we are considering the Scotland Bill programme.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am again grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask one further question, which I think will


have some impact on how hon. Members vote on the motion. Who will be involved in the debate? Will the Prime Minister—who was educated in Scotland and now claims to represent the whole United Kingdom—come to the Dispatch Box during the six-and-a-half-hour debate to explain his position on the West Lothian question?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the matter before us.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): I had thought that the motion was sufficiently self-explanatory not to need much of an introduction. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) is new to the House, so he may not fully have understood the procedure. As you rightly pointed out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the motion is narrow and specific.
For the benefit of those who have not fully kept up to date with what is happening in the House, I should give some background to the original motion. On Second Reading of the Scotland Bill, the House agreed, without a Division—I think that my memory is correct—that there should be a programme motion. The programme motion is a new procedure recommended by the Modernisation Committee to facilitate the pacing of debates, so that all parts of a Bill can be debated, which is not always what happens when we follow the alternative method of allocating time—a guillotine motion.
Conservative Members may care to reflect on the fact that that programme motion was tabled not only in my name, but in the names of the shadow Leader of the House, of the Liberal Democrat spokesman and of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). There was cross-party agreement on how the Bill should be handled.
The motion is narrow and details some aspects of how that agreement should be carried out in practice. As I had to tell the hon. Member for Guildford, it does not allow for an extra six and a half hours. Programme motions are experimental—the Modernisation Committee recommended that the House should try that new way of working. As we have said, we shall learn as we go on and ensure that the system works as well as possible.
Programme motions involve the establishment of a Business Committee, to work out how best to deal with the pacing of debates. An issue that has arisen on one or two occasions when a Bill has been programmed is whether—when debate is curtailed because of a statement or, indeed, because the Opposition have tabled a private notice question, as they did today—there should be injury time for the time that is lost. The motion simply ensures that, if time is taken because of a statement—we do not intend to have statements on these days, but something might crop up that requires one to be made—or because of a private notice question that is accepted by Madam Speaker, the time for consideration of the Scotland Bill will be protected. The motion provides for injury time, which I believe is for the convenience of the House.
That approach was agreed through the usual channels. If Conservative Back Benchers have any problems with that, or with other matters that are not as relevant, they should have consulted Conservative Front Benchers.

Mr. Alex Salmond: As an example to everyone else, I shall be very brief. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) has complained at length about a request that was made jointly by the parties, including the Conservative party. Some would argue that he has taken up the time of the House unnecessarily in making such a complaint, but I do not take that view, as I have been wondering about Conservative Back Benchers' fascination with the six and a half hours. It came to me in a blinding flash that the reason why Conservative Back Benchers are fascinated with the figure of six and a half is that that is exactly the opinion poll rating of the Tory party as reported in yesterday's Daily Record.
In the unlikely event that the contribution of the hon. Member for Guildford is broadcast in Scotland, many people may think that 6.5 per cent. is too high a rating for the Conservatives, given their attitude to the Bill and to Scottish matters in general.

Mr. Eric Forth: I welcome the motion, although I regret the fact that the Leader of the House did not see fit to open the debate to explain the nature of the proposal. It is all very well for her to say that the motion is self-explanatory, but has the House of Commons fallen so low that hon. Members are now expected simply to glance at an item of business on the Order Paper—business for which debate is allowed until 10 pm, as you well know, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and say, without even the courtesy of an explanation from the Leader of the House, "Well, that's all right then"?
Admittedly, the right hon. Lady has—in response to the initiation of the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), which I welcome—given some explanation of what is on the Order Paper. However, her explanation seemed largely to consist of her saying that, because something called the usual channels have agreed on something, it must be all right. I do not share that view. The usual channels, whatever they are, may have a key role to play, but I hope that hon. Members can have a look-in occasionally, too.
The right hon. Lady seems surprised that Conservative Members want to participate in the debate. The fact that a number of hon. Members want to do so may be old-fashioned, for all I know. Perhaps I have not caught up with the modernisation of the House, or perhaps modernisation means that we should no longer bother to participate in debates.
I believe that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a stout defender of the House and of Back Benchers' rights, would want to encourage us to debate the motion. You would not expect hon. Members, such as my hon. Friends, who are widely involved in the business of the House, simply to accept that because an unexplained item is on the Order Paper, and because something called the usual channels have agreed to it, it must necessarily be all right. We want to spend just a little time this evening exploring the implications of the motion. The right hon. Lady has been at great pains to say that there is no extra time available—as if extra time was some sort of crime; as if the Government were ashamed of any concession over time.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have a great deal of respect for him, which has


lasted for many years. We have crossed swords on education matters on many occasions. It is always a joy to listen to him and a pleasure to look at his colourful appearance. Therefore, I am happy to spend time doing that this evening. However, I would hate him to be under any misapprehension about what I was saying. We shall give extra time if it is necessary. This is a pragmatic motion—it is about injury time, not extra time. It might be a fine distinction, but the motion is intended simply to ensure that if there is a statement or a private notice question, time will not be lost. I am glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's support, but I would not like him inadvertently to mislead people about the motion.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. Indeed, she is demonstrating the point of the debate. I said something that inadvertently has given the wrong impression, and the right hon. Lady has kindly and courteously corrected me. That is the point of the debate. Already, we understand more than we did a short time ago about the nature of the motion and what lies behind it. We are trying to obtain just that sort of clarification.
I hope that the right hon. Lady agrees that she may be setting an important precedent in the light of what happened today. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, said that we must not discuss that, but it must be at the back of our minds, because an important debate was squeezed out by a combination of parliamentary events. We are now being assured, which I welcome, that there will be a fresh approach to these matters, as exemplified in the programme motion. It will allow the House to deal with PNQs and other genuinely urgent matters secure in the knowledge that injury time is safeguarded for the important debate that will follow. That is what is important about the motion. I hope that when the right hon. Lady replies to this short debate—

Mr. Leigh: If what my right hon. Friend proposes is accepted by the House, hon. Members may be secure in the knowledge of the length of time of a debate, but they may be insecure in the knowledge of when a vote might take place. As most new Labour Members of Parliament seem to be more interested in votes than in taking part in debates, they may not view my right hon. Friend's proposal with satisfaction.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but we shall never know the answer, because there are hardly any Labour Members in the Chamber. Indeed, there is only one Back Bencher, the distinguished hon. Member for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray). I await his contribution with eager anticipation. He may want to take this opportunity to answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). I cannot answer on behalf of Labour Members of Parliament, and I would not want to do so. Nevertheless, it is an interesting point. Perhaps the Leader of the House will speak on behalf of the Labour party when she replies to the debate.
I have one important reservation about the motion, which arises from the fact that the right hon. Lady—if I heard her correctly—said that if we agreed the motion tonight, some mysterious Committee would meet next week to decide what would be debated during the

allocation of time. That is both good and bad news. The bad news is that we are expected to vote on the motion without knowing to what use the allocation of time will be put—

Mrs. Taylor: I intervene in the hope that I may clarify the issue and, perhaps, jog the right hon. Gentleman's memory. He referred to a mysterious Committee. I remember when he and I served on an education Bill, which was the subject of a guillotine, and he was a member of the Business Committee at that time. I may be wrong—it may have been one of his colleagues. However, Business Committees are no new process. They are not mysterious. As a former Minister, he probably knows that; he just needs to probe the recesses of his mind.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful, as ever, to the right hon. Lady. Perhaps, in the spirit of modernisation and openness, she would agree to cameras being allowed into the Committee to witness its proceedings, so that we can all share in the debate. I leave that thought with her.
I welcome the fact that the debate this evening could, if it was what hon. Members wanted—

Mr. James Wallace: As a member of the mysterious Business Committee, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the views of his party are well represented by the Conservative Members who serve on that Committee. The first day of the Report stage will deal almost entirely with new clause 1, which relates to the important West Lothian question. That is a sign of how sensitive the Business Committee is to the need of the Conservative party to express itself.

Mr. Forth: I am mystified. How does the hon. and learned Gentleman know what the Committee will decide? Are we not getting a little ahead of ourselves? I thought that the Leader of the House said that following this debate—

Mrs. Taylor: I said that following the programme motion that we passed some time ago, a Business Committee was established. That Committee has been sitting and has dealt with all of the Committee stage of the Bill. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to follow the proceedings, to which he did not object.

Mr. Forth: We now know that the Business Committee will not pay any attention to tonight's debate. I had intended to welcome the fact that that mysterious Committee might pay some attention to what has been said tonight and respect the views of those hon. Members who have taken the trouble to be present. It now appears that the Committee works in isolation and will pay no attention to what has been said. Indeed, it may already have made its decision.

Mrs. Taylor: Again, the right hon. Gentleman is misleading himself about the motion. It has nothing to do with the subjects that will be debated during the remaining time on the Scotland Bill; it is simply about the time that is allocated and the fact that there will be injury time. The House has already agreed—and the right hon. Gentleman has already agreed—that the Business Committee should deal with the question of the subjects to be debated.


I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman cannot follow these procedures. Obviously, he has not read the Order Paper on the days when we have debated devolution. Had he done so, he would have seen everything set out on each day. Members of all parties serve on the Business Committee and they decide how much of the time that the House allocates is then allocated to each subject. This motion is about how much time the House allocates. We are talking only about injury time.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for trying to clarify the matter, but she has not totally succeeded. I am not certain whether the Business Committee has already met and decided the subjects to be debated—even though we are now being asked to provide injury time and the Committee has not been able to take account of that—or whether the Committee has yet to meet and make a decision on the subject matters for debate, following the decision that the House may make tonight.

Mr. Wallace: The right hon. Gentleman should know that the Business Committee met regularly during the Committee stage of the Bill and used a timetable which generally, if not entirely, satisfied all sections of the House. He may recall that the first day of Report stage was due last week, but because of the important emergency business relating to Northern Ireland, it was postponed to this coming week.
Although the Business Committee has not yet met to discuss the Bill's Report stage, the right hon. Gentleman will well know that, through the usual channels, hon. Members have indicated to members of the Business Committee that Conservative Members wish to have a full day's debate on the West Lothian question. It will be a matter for the Business Committee to affirm or not to affirm such a debate. Nevertheless, Conservative Members have expressed strong views on the matter. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that Conservative Members do not want such a debate and that they would like to make even more progress on the Bill, I am sure that the Business Committee will consider that view, which is unlike the view expressed in informal discussions by his representatives on the Business Committee.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has now clarified the matter to my satisfaction. He implied earlier that the decision had been made, but he is now telling us that it has not been made. I welcome that statement, which suggests that if Conservative Members would like to say in this brief debate how they think the Business Committee should make its decision, they will have an opportunity to do so. I do not want to do that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have already dealt with the Business Committee, and I should have stopped further mention of it earlier. As the Leader of the House said, the Business Committee was established under a previous order, and we are debating only the motion on today's Order Paper.

Mr. Forth: As ever, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to you for your guidance, and shall endeavour to adhere to it.

Mr. St. Aubyn: For some hon. Members, the question whether the West Lothian question will be debated for six and a half hours is germane to deciding whether we support the motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me or for the House, as we are debating a programme motion. The hon. Gentleman will have to speak with Opposition Front Benchers, to determine whether that matter is included in the programme. We cannot have any assurances on that matter in this debate.

Mr. Forth: I shall bring my remarks to an end. However, I hope that this debate has made an important point—that such motions are legitimate matters for debate and should not be nodded through simply because the great and the good have decided or predisposed of them. We have achieved in the debate some clarification of the background of the matter and of the reasoning behind it. We have also drawn out—albeit, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with your great patience and understanding—the nature and existence of one of the Committees that guide our lives and destinies. The exercise has therefore been useful.
I can therefore support the motion on the Order Paper. I also hope that, on future occasions, we can have such debates and clarifications. I very much welcome the interventions by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and by the Leader of the House. They have given us ordinary mortals in the background just a glimpse into the corridors of power.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The House should be extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) for taking this opportunity to clarify an important issue.
It is disappointing to us all that the Leader of the House did not seize the opportunity at the start of this debate to advise us of the intention behind the motion. Had she done so at the beginning of the debate, rather than in a few interventions in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—who was very forgiving in allowing her to intervene—we would have been able earlier to establish the truth, even if we are still unclear about the precise difference between injury time and extra time. I tell the right hon. Lady—in case she should seek to misrepresent me—that, although I realise that there is injury time and extra time in football matches, both provisions result in the game continuing rather longer than it might otherwise have done. However, that is perhaps a slightly semantic point.
Although the point dealt with in this debate may be narrow, it is one of principle. The Leader of the House said that the motion arises partly from the proceedings of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, and that it has been agreed—in mysterious conversations through the usual channels—that the programme for the Scotland Bill will be adjusted to provide a guaranteed six and a half hours of debate on each day of the Bill's Report stage, which I welcome.


I am sure that Conservative Members in the Chamber will welcome the fact that the Government have agreed to change the timetable on that important Bill.
This debate is a good example of why we need the type of change in programme heralded by the motion. I know that you ruled that some matters mentioned earlier in the debate should not have been so mentioned, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, today's debate on economic and monetary union was similar to our debates during the Scotland Bill's Committee stage, in that proper time was not allowed to debate a matter of grave importance to the future of these islands. I argue that the people of Britain and hon. Members were not given—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to talk about an earlier debate. If he is concerned about that debate, he can express those concerns at another time. He must speak to the Scotland Bill programme.

Mr. Howarth: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for your guidance, and understand the point that you are making. I am trying to make the point that there are good grounds for the Leader of the House to table the motion. I hope that she will consider extending the principle underlying the motion to other matters, so that our debates on other important issues will not be truncated within the narrow confines of a 7 o'clock or 10 o'clock motion.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)—who has now disappeared—came into the Chamber only to make a quick comic point. Perhaps that shows his party's—[Interruption.] The Leader of the House says that that is a good point. She is right to think that it is a good point for the Conservative party[Interruption.]—but she should be absolutely clear about the fact that, in elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Labour party will be defeated at the hands of the separatists.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the business before us. He must not do that.

Mr. Howarth: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh).

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend, like almost everyone who has spoken in this debate, seems to accept that the motion is a good thing. There seems to be a consensus that all those Bills should be guillotined, and that all those meetings are frightfully cosy, when everything is agreed. I do not accept that. I return to my original point, which I made in an intervention on—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The motion deals not with a guillotine but with varying the programme. The hon. Gentleman is therefore misinformed, but will perhaps know when to comment on that matter. I tell the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) that we cannot have repetition of earlier speeches.

Mr. Howarth: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not intend to repeat verbatim points made by my hon. Friends, but I intend to repeat some of the arguments, which are

forceful. We are faced with this motion today simply because, on 4 March 1998—I am sure that the Leader of the House will correct me if I am wrong—in dealing with the West Lothian question in our debate on the Scotland Bill, we had precisely 50 minutes—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will not allow that matter to be raised in a debate on a very specific motion. The hon. Gentleman cannot deal with earlier debates. As I said, the West Lothian question has nothing to do with the matter before us. We are debating a programme, and nothing else.

Mr. Howarth: I entirely accept that, but the motion suggests that we change our procedures in respect of a particular Bill in order to ensure that the debate continues for six and a half hours.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not a good thing for the Deputy Speaker to be on his feet all the time. The motion is to vary the programme, not to change procedure.

Mr. Howarth: I apologise for the fact that you are on your feet once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am quite sure that you will appreciate the exercise. You do a very sedentary job and, if I can assist in giving you some exercise, that must be a good thing.
The motion may not vary procedure, but it seeks to vary the programme. In welcoming it, is it not reasonable to allude to why it has come about? We are not debating the motion in a vacuum. It has not alighted on the House from the ether. It has resulted from a specific problem that arose in Committee. I shall not repeat it, as you have asked me not to, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said that he did not think that six and a half hours would be long enough, and I agree. In welcoming the motion, I believe that the Leader of the House responded to my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), when, on 4 March, he referred to the utter unacceptability of the fact that the time permitted to discuss perhaps the most crucial and central part of the Bill had been limited to 50 minutes. Therefore, I welcome the fact that we are to have six and a half hours of guaranteed debate.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough that the issue is so important that six and a half hours is not long enough to debate it. I understand that the usual channels have agreed on the motion, but the issue is of such fundamental importance to the United Kingdom that it deserves more time. Perhaps the Leader of the House will consider giving us even longer to debate it. Given what my hon. Friend said about the Irish question in the last century and previous debates on devolution under former Labour Governments, it is right and proper that we should devote more time to it. I invite the Leader of the House to listen to the representations that have been made and perhaps to go back to the usual channels and seek to extend the debate beyond six and a half hours.

Dr. Julian Lewis: When I first had the idea of making a brief contribution to the debate, I was under the impression that what was proposed in the motion was a thoroughly good thing. Indeed, I was on the point of congratulating the usual channels and welcoming the fact that, apparently, the Government had listened to representations from the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen about varying the programme. However, as a result of some of the speeches by my right hon. and hon. Friends, I have become somewhat more concerned.
As you have pointed out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are not in danger of varying the procedures; but we are in danger of setting a precedent. I should like to know—I invite the Leader of the House to intervene and enlighten me—on what basis such variations are made in respect of the Bill and, potentially, in future.

Sir Robert Smith: We had already done that when previous debates on the Scotland Bill continued after 10 o'clock to take account of earlier business that had disrupted the proceedings.

Dr. Lewis: Yes, but, with respect, the hon. Gentleman is not taking full account of the fact that, as the Leader of the House pointed out, we are talking about a fairly new process—injury time—when, in effect, the clock is stopped if there is a ministerial statement or a private notice question such as we had this afternoon.
I am worried by the fact that the Leader of the House said earlier that it was an emanation of the lucubrations of the Modernisation Committee. We are all aware that the Modernisation Committee is engaged in a number of contentious activities, including ways in which the voting procedure could be changed. In the light of the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) about the dislocation that such variation would introduce into the voting times, it could be part of a programme to ensure that voting systems were changed and we no longer had to be present for a vote.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is way beyond the scope of the motion.

Dr. Lewis: I am very concerned to hear that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman need not be concerned. I am here to guide hon. Members.

Dr. Lewis: Indeed. As a new Member, I very much value that guidance.
My concern is that, in having to decide whether to support the proposed variation, my vote—if there is to be a vote—should not be deemed to set a precedent that could then be used to have knock-on effects on the procedures of the House that many of us would regard as quite deplorable. However, I am happy to leave that aside.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: The New forest is a wonderful place, but it appears that one of the horses has got out. The procedures that we are following this evening were approved in a debate of the whole House without Division. Their implementation this evening has the agreement of representatives of all parties.

Dr. Lewis: I welcome that intervention, if only to have the opportunity of endorsing what a wonderful place the

New forest is. I wish that Liberal Democrat Members, when they want to indulge in rather puerile insults, would at least think of original ones rather than copying an occasional diarist in The Times.
In trying to assess how to respond to the proposals this evening, we need to be aware of their full implications and consider whether the Government will use what happens tonight to say, "You did not oppose it on that occasion; therefore, you have no grounds for opposing it now," on some future occasion when the implications for the procedures of the House have become clear.

Mr. Forth: Will my hon. Friend consider the point that, simply because something was agreed by the House some time ago, even without a vote, that does not mean that the House cannot take a different view now because circumstances have changed, time has moved on and the debate has developed? Does he agree that we are hearing a rather alarming argument from the Government and from the Liberal Democrats that, if something was agreed some time ago, it is set in concrete and can never be varied, not even by the House itself?

Dr. Lewis: Yes; furthermore, I am emboldened by that intervention from my right hon. Friend, who has been in the House so much longer than I have, to say what crossed my mind during the intervention by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell). I was not aware that, if something has been agreed without dispute by a Committee of the whole House from which an hon. Member such as me was absent, I am therefore forbidden to raise the issue during a debate on a serious issue which can have knock-on effects on the procedures of the House. I am concerned that, as the maxim says, hard cases make bad law. In this case, soft precedents make useful precedents for the Government to put leverage on the Opposition to accept procedures that we consider unacceptable. It is rather strange that the Government should have given way on an issue that suits them when, as we have seen previously—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This item is far too narrow for the hon. Gentleman to concern himself with what might happen. He must stick to the matter before the House—the motion relating to the programme for the Scotland Bill. He should not worry about what might happen in future.

Dr. Lewis: I am extremely grateful, as always, for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have sufficiently made my point about what might happen in the future. It is the events of the very recent past—this afternoon—that put doubts into the minds of hon. Members. A debate on an important matter—I will not discuss its subject now—which was scheduled to last for three and a half hours lost one and a quarter of those hours. Even my arithmetic shows that in one hour and a quarter, with the 10-minutes rule operating, seven or eight more hon. Members would have been able to take part in the debate.
We can conclude from the fact that the Government are willing to give injury time on this issue that they clearly regard it as more important to confer powers on the new Scottish Parliament than to debate Westminster's loss of powers to Brussels, as we wanted to do in the truncated debate this afternoon.

Mr. Donald Gorrie: I found the past hour remarkably educational. As I understand it, the House agreed that it should spent three days on Report and Third Reading of the Bill and that the debate would end at 10 o'clock. The Government are now saying that, if there is a statement or the debates take place on a Thursday when the Leader of the House answers questions, that time will be made up. All that we are discussing today is whether there will be three debates that are guaranteed to last six and a half hours or whether on one or more of those days the debate may last only five and a half hours or four and a half hours.
The measure is an admirable concept, which I hope will be extended in future timetables for Bills, so that they are not adversely affected by extraneous events. That is a simple, straightforward and honourable concept, which I am happy to endorse.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I have one brief point to make. At first sight, this may seem to be an entirely innocuous motion to vary the programme of a particular Bill. It sets a dangerous precedent—it packages Parliament. In the past, the Opposition's one weapon was time. Again and again, in the great debates of history—on Irish Bills, reform Bills and many others—Oppositions spent days and weeks debating. The Government are tightly packaging Parliament with a nice pink ribbon so that everything is agreed beforehand and debates have a set duration and finish at a set time. That is all very cosy and nothing ever changes. The Government, of course, win every vote and the Opposition cannot even delay proceedings. Hon. Members who are not present and the public should be very concerned.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The past hour has been very interesting and I give the debate full marks for entertainment. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) said that this had been an educational exercise. He seemed to have no difficulty in understanding the measure, so it seems that it is Conservative Members who need educating. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) complaining that the Opposition needed more time, when the purpose of the motion is to provide more time, or a guaranteed time if necessary.
I recommend that hon. Members read the Order Paper, which the Modernisation Committee made easier to read. If hon. Members had done a little homework before they came into the Chamber, or had read the precise wording of the motion, they could immediately have set aside their doubts and they would have found our intentions as easy to understand as did Liberal Democrat Members.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That the Order [13th January] relating to Scotland Bill (Programme) be further amended—

(a) in paragraph 2, by leaving out 'at Ten o'clock' and inserting 'six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill';

(b) by inserting, after paragraph 2,—
'2A. On each such allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the bill for any part of the period of six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill which falls after Ten o'clock';

and

(c) in paragraph 4, by inserting after sub-paragraph (3)—
'(3A) If, on consideration, two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or motions'.

Orders of the Day — SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,

That the Scottish Grand Committee shall meet—

(1) on Wednesday 20th May at half-past Four o'clock at Westminster to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee, the proceedings to be interrupted at Seven o'clock;
(2) on Tuesday 16th June at half-past Ten o'clock at Westminster to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee;
(3) on Monday 6th July at half-past Ten o'clock at New Parliament House, Edinburgh, to take Questions for oral answer and to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee; and
(4) on Tuesday 14th July at half-past Ten o'clock at Westminster to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee.—[Mr. Betts.]

Orders of the Day — PETITION

Building in the Countryside

Mr. David Amess: Although my constituency is urban, it is surrounded by the beautiful Essex countryside. My constituents are very concerned that the Government should do everything possible to preserve the countryside and its traditional way of life. The petition has been signed by many local residents in Belfairs, Blenheim, Chalkwell, Eastwood, Leigh-on-Sea, Prittlewell and Westborough.
The petition of the residents of Southend, West declares:
that we are concerned about the decisions to sanction plans for new development throughout the countryside.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to ensure that more homes are built in city areas, instead of the countryside or Green Belt, to breathe new life into our cities and to protect valuable countryside for future generations.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Battle Fire Station

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Mr. Charles Wardle: I am grateful for this opportunity to help clear up the confusion and misapprehension that have surrounded the proposals of East Sussex fire authority for staffing changes at Battle fire station in my constituency.
The proposals were put to the fire authority by the chief fire officer in early February and met with approval from a clear majority of the members. Arrangements were then made for the normal statutory process of consultation. The proposals, which have not been opposed by the Fire Brigades Union and are actively welcomed by Battle's retained firefighters, do not call for any cut in the number of appliances at Battle or any reduction in fire cover and will actively strengthen road traffic accident emergency response throughout East Sussex. Nevertheless, they have been the subject of a persistent, ill-informed, alarmist campaign of protest which has wrongly implied that the fire station will be closed, creating needless doubts and insecurity in the minds of anxious local residents.
Before I describe the proposed changes and ask the House to consider what lies behind the muddled—if not downright misleading—protest campaign that has been organised, mainly by a local paper, I should like to pay tribute to the fire service nationally. The 50,000 whole-time uniformed staff, control room personnel, retained firefighters and the officers in every brigade perform a most demanding job with professionalism and courage. Together, they ensure that high standards of fire cover are always met. They embrace new technology where it can help operations, improve training competence whenever possible and do their utmost to enhance fire safety in the workplace and at home. As well as attending and dealing with fires, Britain's whole-time and retained firemen and women regularly undertake vital rescue work at the scene of road traffic accidents and other emergencies.
Four years ago, I had the responsibility for fire and emergency plans that the Minister has today. I congratulate him on having taken over those responsibilities. I feel sure that he and other right hon. and hon. Members agree that the fire service deserves our unreserved respect and admiration. The East Sussex fire authority, most ably chaired by Councillor Bill Clements, a retired police superintendent from Bexhill, covers East Sussex, Brighton and Hove. Like other fire authorities, it faces the constant challenge of the local authority spending constraints that the retiring chief inspector, Sir Bryan Collins, referred to in his report last year. No doubt his successor, Mr. Meldrum, with whom I also worked when he ran the West Midlands brigade, will be mindful of the same pressures, which this Government, like the previous one, have kept in place.
Although East Sussex fire authority spends 11 per cent. above the amount allocated by central Government and there is no cost-cutting imperative in the proposals, it needs constantly to strive for more efficient and effective deployment of the more than 400 whole-time and more than 300 retained firefighters at its 24 stations. Twelve of those stations are staffed entirely by retained firefighters,

six in large towns, such as Brighton, Eastbourne and Hastings, are staffed by whole time, and the other six are day-crewed by whole time for the Monday to Friday day shift, with the remainder of the week covered by the retained.
On 5 February, the chief fire officer for East Sussex, Alan McCormack, submitted proposals to the authority to redeploy, without any loss of jobs, the nine whole-time firemen at Battle to other larger day-crewed stations in order to fill four retirement vacancies and to facilitate a better balanced four-by-four duty roster at Lewes, Bexhill, Newhaven, Crowborough and Uckfield. He proposed to add more recruits to the 13 retained firemen in Battle in order to provide a fully staffed team there, consisting entirely of retained firemen. He also undertook that Battle would keep its two existing appliances—fire engines to the layman—which is strictly one more than is required by Her Majesty's inspectors' standard of fire cover for the town and surrounding area. He further recommended that he be allowed to purchase the latest cutting and separating equipment for emergency road traffic accidents to be fitted to appliances at each of the 24 stations in the brigade.
The last recommendation was a huge step forward in road traffic accident support because, until then, only three of the stations had had such an operational service unit—one being Battle. With only three OSUs in the whole county, that has meant that the one at Battle has been in constant demand to respond to accidents outside the Battle area, thus depleting local cover for Battle whenever that one appliance has been on call further afield.
To summarise, the chief officer wants a set of emergency cutting and separating equipment at every station and a better working balance for the day crews in five larger towns, with Battle resuming its former wholly retained status. Pivotal to the last condition will be the ability to recruit extra retained staff at Battle, but one new firefighter has already been signed up, and the fire authority says that it has other volunteers ready to apply.
Having previously done the Minister's job, I never underestimate the problems nationally of retaining the retained, but in Battle today, the senior retained firefighter, Mr. Mike Dawes, is confident that the fire authority will not find it difficult to sign up additional recruits to the full complement of 18. If, for any reason, that assumption is wrong, the whole proposal will be undermined.
Whatever happens, there is no question of seeking any modification of existing standards of fire cover in the Battle area in terms of response times. As the House will know, the fire authority has a statutory obligation under the Fire Services Act 1947 to provide the fire cover laid down by Her Majesty's inspectors. In Battle, that means a response time of eight to 10 minutes in the centre of town, which represents 3 per cent. of the 12,000 hectares covered by the fire station, and 20 minutes in the rest of the area.
Until the early 1980s, Battle fire station operated under those same standards of fire cover with an entirely retained strength. At that point, flagging recruitment of the retained, which was by then a national problem, led to the introduction of 13 whole-time firefighters at Battle. That number was reduced to six in 1983, when more


retained firefighters came forward, but increased to nine in 1988, along with 13 retained firefighters who continued to work on the station.
All the nine whole-time staff now in Battle have given loyal service to the local community and deserve praise and thanks for what they and their 13 retained colleagues have done. Five of the whole-time officers have been in the town for more than two years, but four others were transferred, for one reason or another, from other parts of the country only relatively recently when vacancies occurred. All of them have worked conscientiously, although it has to be said that they have encouraged the disapproval of their union by working out of hours for extra money. They have done that by signing up on-call as retained staff out of their normal weekday shift hours. The FBU has posted a notice at the fire station warning its members that the practice contravenes union policy.
The level of call-outs during the Monday to Friday day shift from 9 am to 1 pm and 2 pm to 5 pm, staffed by the whole time, has fallen noticeably. In the first 12 weeks of this year, during the day shift, Battle fire station has responded to just one local FDR 1—which, as the Minister will know, is a fire reportable to the Home Office—four FDR 3s, or minor fires, two road traffic accidents and seven activated fire alarms where there was no fire. I understand that, on the same shift, there were eight other calls outside the Battle area. It is, of course, true that that pattern could change at any time, but, for the first three months of 1998, there has been little activity in the daytime on weekdays. Most of the fire calls in Battle have in fact occurred when the retained are on duty.
Significantly, FBU officials have indicated that they will not contest the chief officer's proposals that Battle returns to wholly retained status. Having chaired the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council at the Home Office, I am acquainted with and have much respect for the FBU leadership. The operational sense of the better balanced four-by-four roster at other larger day-crewed stations appears to have been accepted by the whole brigade, but the union has rightly insisted on close scrutiny of the terms of transfer for each of the nine whole time in Battle who will be moving to other stations in the county. Management has fully complied with that.
Each of the nine whole time have been able to discuss their personal circumstances with Mr. Short, a senior officer from the Hastings division. I understand that eight of them have been offered acceptable posts elsewhere in East Sussex. The remaining one has made three applications to join the London fire brigade, but has not yet been successful. Where, then, is the gripe? With the experts more at less at one over the broad principle of the changes, what are the objections and why have they arisen?
In February, a number of constituents in Battle expressed their concern to me that the fire station was about to close. That view rapidly gained momentum among local residents, fearful that they would no longer be protected against the risk of fire. That false alarm arose from a "Save Battle Fire Station" campaign, launched by the Observer in Battle, one of two or three local newspapers sold in the town but published in St. Leonards on Sea.
Posters proclaiming "SOS—Save Battle Fire Station", depicting a fire engine over the newspaper's logo were distributed to local shops and pubs. The poster message was not "Save Our Nine Whole-Time Firemen From Transfer" or "Don't Allow Battle Fire Station to Revert Entirely to Retained Staffing", but simply, "Save Our Station". It is little wonder that many casual observers quickly assumed that the station was about to close. The newspaper now vehemently denies that its reporters ever mentioned closure, but successive editions were sprayed with the misleading poster illustration, and, on 13 February, it quoted on its front page a Liberal Democrat county councillor from Eastbourne saying:
The chief issue here is the ultimate closure of Battle fire station".
On page five of the same edition, it quoted a local Liberal Democrat county councillor wrongly implying that Battle would lose cutting and separating equipment for road accidents.
My own explanatory press release was selectively used, and the editorial barrage that followed was acrimonious, but accuracy, distorted material and the public's right to know is for the Press Complaints Commission to monitor. What matters in this debate is that the editor collected 600 signatures from about 500 worried households for the SOS campaign, and a Robertsbridge resident organised a petition in the shops displaying the poster, which attracted several thousand signatures.
After consultations with the fire authority and the chief officer, I wrote to all the campaign signatories, as well as to the chamber of commerce and to other residents who had expressed fear and anxiety. The posters promptly disappeared from practically all the shops, but widespread uncertainty about fire cover and the ability of retained firemen to do as good a job as whole time continued to be fuelled by the on-going local press speculation.
At the public consultation meeting on 26 March in Battle, Councillor Clements set out the fire authority's proposals very clearly in his opening addresses. Not including the uniform fire brigade personnel, there were—perhaps—180 people present, which is equivalent to about 1.5 per cent. of the fire station area population. It was important that people could air their concerns as the legislation provides. Those who spoke included Liberal Democrat councillors, representatives of Battle town council and a fireman from the London fire brigade, as well as trade union activists from the Royal Mail and the ambulance service, one resident of Robertsbridge and two other residents from Battle.
Following the speeches, there was general acceptance from those in the hall that the fire station was not about to close, but doubts were stridently repeated about the ability of retained personnel to provide as prompt a response as the whole time and, therefore, to ensure equivalent safety. Questions were raised about the comparative lack of training and firefighting experience of retained staff, and other doubts were voiced about the prospect of finding more recruits for the retained in the face of the hostility over the fire station that had recently been engendered.
After the meeting, representatives of the retained told me that they felt badly bruised by the lack of confidence in them that was implicit in the sometimes rowdy and querulous meeting. Although the chief fire officer did his best, he was unable to assuage the overwhelming feeling in the hall that retained firefighters could not fully match


the training and performance of their whole-time colleagues. However, the retained now assure me that they are determined to fulfil the fire authority's plans and staff the station on their own, as they did for generations before 1980. They say that further recruits have been identified, and that there is a spirit of determination that these firefighting residents of Battle, who volunteer for such courageous duties, can and will do an excellent job.
The retained represent a lively cross-section of the Battle community. Mike Dawes has lived in the town all his life and runs a garden machinery service centre. His colleagues include a local auctioneer and valuer, two carpenters, a fork-lift truck driver, a picture shop owner, a plumbing and heating engineer, the manager of the local supermarket, two workers at the nearby gypsum mine, the manager of the local engineering company, a foundry worker, a garden maintenance contractor and one person between jobs.
These people bring a variety of important technical skills to the firefighting task. Together, they are the very strength of Battle's close-knit community. They take enormous pride in their work and the public rumpus created by the local newspaper's irresponsible and misleading campaign has only served to reinforce their resolve. However, it would be encouraging to Battle's own retained firefighters—and the local community as a whole—if the Minister could provide the House with an assurance this evening that the 15,000 retained firefighters across this country are fully trained and perform their tasks with the greatest competence, dedication, skill and bravery, and that they can be relied upon without question. It is helpful that the Home Office brochure "Opportunities as Retained Firefighters" emphasises that
the training is excellent and really gives you confidence.
I am equally sure that the Minister's comments about unchanged standards of fire cover in what the fire authority is proposing for Battle—as well as his views about the value of 24 appliances across East Sussex having cutting and separating gear, and the benefits, too, in the five larger towns of a balanced day-crewed system—will be carefully heeded.
Before I conclude, I should draw the attention of the House to the latest attempt by the Battle Observer to add fuel to its "Save Battle Fire Station" campaign, which looks increasingly as if it is driven by the need to sell newspapers, regardless of the fears of readers. On 17 April, the paper ran a story under the headline "U-Turn over fire station", claiming that I had reversed the position I adopted over the fire station in 1995—when I defended the continued presence of the whole-time staff—and that my views had changed for no apparent reason.
As the fire authority will confirm, there is a world of difference between what the chief fire officer is proposing now and what was in contemplation in 1995—although even then I had to issue a press release, dousing the rumours that Battle fire station was about to close.
First, in 1995, one option considered was to reduce the number of appliances at Battle from two to one. There is now a firm undertaking to keep two appliances there. Secondly, in 1995, there was no sign of fresh recruits for the retained. Now, one has already signed up, and other local people have asked for application forms. Thirdly, in 1995 there was no proposal to equip all 24 stations with cutting and separating equipment.
Fourthly, in 1995, relations between the whole time and retained at Battle were amicable—as they had been for several years previously—but, in the recent past, tensions have grown. This is largely because of the publicity campaign by the Battle Observer. The retained have told me that they are no longer talking to their whole-time colleagues, which is a great pity and no way to run a fire station where the retained have always been in a majority anyway.
Fifthly, in 1995, there was no plan to redeploy the whole time to secure, useful jobs elsewhere in East Sussex. Sixthly, in 1995 the FBU's disapproval of the whole time working overtime as retained was not as formal and as explicit as it is now. Seventhly, since 1995, there has been a marked fall-off in fire calls on the day shift, such that, recently, one of the whole-time staff was admonished for using his spare time from duty rather too enterprisingly by cleaning windows at nearby buildings.
In contrast to the uncertainty that existed in 1995 about the fire authority's best way forward, the current proposals will ensure that fire cover in Battle is fully safeguarded. I know just how much this matters to local residents because my family lives in Battle. The proposals also allow for more efficient fire protection in several other towns, including Bexhill in my constituency, and they will enable a very significant advance in the response to road traffic accident emergencies throughout East Sussex.
To conclude, I do not expect the Minister to anticipate the formal decision of the fire authority—to be taken on 13 May—or the subsequent recommendation of Her Majesty's inspector to the Secretary of State under section 19 of the Fire Services Act. However, I can tell the House that Councillor Clements has advised me that the Conservative and Labour majority on the fire authority support the chief officer's plans. In the meanwhile, I hope that the Minister will agree that, while full public consultation and debate should always be encouraged, misleading publicity that allows local residents to assume that if a fire station needs to be saved, it is otherwise likely to close—when, in fact, nothing of the sort is contemplated—is to be deplored.
I shall always defend the right of the media, or any individual, to express differing points of view about a given subject. The House will agree that it would be a dull world if we all thought the same about everything. However, that is a far cry from a publicity campaign that fails to convey the detailed arguments about proposals designed to protect people's safety. There is disturbing evidence that the campaign has caused widespread fear and anxiety, particularly among the elderly. That is why I have been determined to present a balanced and detailed case for the proposed changes to allay the doubts and uncertainty felt by local residents.
I could have sidestepped the debate, saying it was a local authority matter. However, when my constituents express alarm, I never consider it a waste of time to put them fully in the picture. They can be absolutely confident that the retained staff in Battle will successfully maintain the proud tradition of firefighting at Battle fire station.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I must congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle


(Mr. Wardle) on initiating this debate on Battle fire station. I am keenly aware of the sensitivities which inevitably surround any proposals to change the arrangements for providing fire cover. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the concerns he wanted to express in the debate.
We have good reason to be proud of the fire service in this country. The hon. Gentleman—as a former occupant of this post—will agree that it is a real privilege to work with a service which is so highly regarded. He made particular reference to the retained service and to the training of retained firefighters. I would like to pay tribute to retained firefighters, who perform a vital and cost-effective role in providing fire cover, particularly in the more rural areas.
The retained service does an excellent job. However, there is evidence of recruitment and retention difficulties in some parts of the country. It sounds as if a stable crew is stationed at Battle. In view of the importance of this matter, the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council for England and Wales—which I chair, and which the hon. Gentleman has chaired in the past—asked Her Majesty's chief inspector of fire services, Mr. Meldrum, to consider the position in detail and he will report back in due course. Training is vital to the provision of an effective fire service. All firefighters—both whole time and retained—spend a proportion of their time in training.
The Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council has recently produced a framework document, entitled "Training for Competence", which shifts the emphasis of training from inputs to outcomes. It is based on national standards of competence which will for the first time, enable the training provided to all members of the fire service to be assessed against these standards. I hope that that is some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman. It is recognised that for the retained service, there are particular issues which will need to be addressed, but there is a commitment to ensure that the retained service remains well trained.
Last month, the Audit Commission published performance indicators for the fire service for 1996–97. The Commission stated that
"fire brigades continue to attend a high percentage of calls within attendance standards and improved their average between 1993–94 and 1996–97."
Overall, the service met recommended response times on 95 per cent. of occasions. East Sussex fire brigade managed a highly creditable 97 per cent.
The Government will build on this solid foundation, and we shall do so in close and effective partnership with fire service interests, fire authorities, trade unions, chief fire officers and other interested bodies. However, ensuring an efficient and effective fire service is not achieved by just standing still. Local authorities must have a weather eye to the principles of best value and look at standards of fire cover, fire safety and the structure and organisation of every service. Fire service interests are being fully consulted about options, and in June, we shall hold a seminar in partnership with the Local Government Association on "Working Together for Best Value".
In respect of the duties of fire authorities, the hon. Gentleman knows that statutory responsibility for providing an efficient fire service rests with the local fire

authority, which, for Battle fire station, is the East Sussex combined fire authority. The fire authority must keep its fire cover provision under review, deploy its resources efficiently and set its budget at a level that allows it to discharge its statutory responsibilities.
The fire service legislation provides safeguards to ensure that statutory responsibilities continue to be met. Section 19(4) of the Fire Services Act 1947, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, requires that a fire authority cannot reduce the numbers of fire stations, appliances and firefighting posts without the express consent of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has a specific role in considering section 19 applications.
My right hon. Friend grants approval only if he is satisfied, first, that the proposals have been sufficiently widely publicised and are sufficiently detailed and that there is adequate time for any interested party to make representations; secondly, that the representations have been considered by the fire authority; and, thirdly, on the advice of Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services, that national standards of fire cover will be maintained.
There is no statutory right of consultation, but the guidance makes it clear that the Home Secretary considers it to be desirable that there should be appropriate consultation and that he would take into account representations that are made directly to him.
East Sussex fire authority has been consulting on a proposal to change the status of Battle fire station from day-crewed to retained. Such a change would require my right hon. Friend's approval. The authority has yet to decide whether to make a section 19 application. The hon. Gentleman explained the circumstances of the matter. If an application is made, my right hon. Friend will give careful consideration to it and to representations that he receives. He will take advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate on implications for fire cover.
Levels of fire cover are determined locally and rest on four main standards of service, according to the risk category of the area, and assume for each category that a predetermined number of firefighting appliances must attend within a certain time. The standards are not only nationally recommended, but nationally agreed in the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, which is constituted under the 1947 Act. They were extensively reviewed in 1985, and all concerned know where they stand on the minimum level of service that should be delivered.
In 1995, the Audit Commission recommended another review of fire cover, but recognised that no fundamental change should be considered without careful research. A review of the standards is being taken forward by a joint committee of the Fire Brigades Advisory Councils for England and Wales and for Scotland. Its draft report will be discussed at forthcoming meetings of the advisory councils.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned budgets. The standard spending assessment in England for 1998–99 increased by £61.6 million, or 5 per cent. The settlements were 4.4 per cent. last year, and 1.5 per cent. and 0 per cent. in the previous two years. While the problems of funding that we have inherited cannot be resolved overnight, this settlement has recognised and responded to the fire


service's concerns. The fire standard spending assessment for East Sussex for 1998–99 has been increased by £1.1 million—6.2 per cent.—compared with 1997–98. That compares with increases of 5 per cent. last year, and of 2.6 per cent. and 1.7 per cent. in the previous two years.
Until a section 19 application is received from the fire authority, any Government comment on possible changes to fire cover at Battle fire station would be premature.

Nevertheless, I repeat my assurance that in the event of a section 19 application, we would give careful consideration to any representations. The hon. Gentleman's observations would of course be taken into account. We shall reflect carefully on the issues before a decision is arrived at.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Nine o'clock.